On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:15:14PM +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > On 13-09-21 08:26 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > >> I don't think saving three characters (37.5%) is worth the hassle > >> of learning a fontconfig-specific set of digits for base 85. > > > > Agreed. Back when this code was written fontconfig was storing > > font caches in ASCII, so that representation was invented to store > > as much as possible. These days, it's irrelevant, so I agree that > > we should change it to something human-readable. > > I agree with that too. that said displaying everything that way with > FcCharSetPrint() may be too much and a bit annoying. So you think the: <page>: <mask> syntax is too verbose in hex? I can't think of a good alternative off the top of my head without dropping information, and I don't think we want different output format for: $ fc-list <pattern> charset compared to the element-less invocations. > > Also, make it easy to ask for fonts having a specific character by > > making it easy to parse a simple set, something like this for > > example: > > > > $ fc-match :charset={06cc,064a} > > So adding this feature looks nice to me. but doing that with "charset" > may gets confused. it is trivial thing though. Would you prefer a different value syntax or different keyword? Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig