On 14-01-30 09:26 PM, Akira TAGOH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The problem is that in fcfreetype.c, we only set FC_SPACING on the font if >> it's not FC_PROPORTIONAL. Then when matching, if the font pattern doesn't >> have FC_SPACING, it is an implicit match. Ouch! I think we should fix the >> first part. I'm sure there was a reason for it (broken fonts, etc?). But I >> think we should fix it now. Here's the relevant part of fcfreetype.c: >> >> if (spacing != FC_PROPORTIONAL) >> if (!FcPatternAddInteger (pat, FC_SPACING, spacing)) >> goto bail2; > > The reason may be true. but I have no idea what the font it was. we > may need to figure out the side-effect on this change in advance. > Aside from that, we should add a test case to check if targeted > parameters on matcher is surely available after scanning. or having a > trick for those missing parameters on matcher and ignore it. later one > might be more robust for incompatibility on matcher in the future > perhaps. Sure that would be good long term. But in this case, not setting FC_PROPORTIONAL totally breaks any use of this property. Indeed, we want to be able to match monospace fonts. We should do that in vte for example. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
