On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 12:49 +0100, Raimund Steger wrote: > forgot to add the list... > > On Wed, February 11, 2015 02:37, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 02:26 +0100, Raimund Steger wrote: > > > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Still I see the problem if people don't want it, since it's at > > > position 90 and a target=font rule, meaning people cannot really > > > remove it in their user config. That's really somewhat > > > unfortunate. (Why > > > is that file even at that position?) > > > > Yeah, that's annoying. Even if you're in a position to add a rule > > to the systemwide config, I think you can't *entirely* override > > it, because the rule is basically destructive - once it's assigned > > weight 'bold', you can no longer do the same match! You can have a > > rule like this: > > I suppose you could match on the 'embolden' flag then, knowing it > could only have been added by the earlier system config file, and > reverse that and the 'weight' property. You don't know what the weight was set to before, though - only that it was "<= medium". But yeah, setting it back to medium is likely fine for 99% of cases. > But you're probably right, your patch is probably the smoother > experience > for most users, and people or distributions who still want > emboldened monospace can always add that in their config. > > > > [...] > > expert - so excuse me if this is a dumb question, but would it be > > at all plausible to implement some kind of generic non-widening > > synthetic bold in freetype which it could use for fixed-width > > fonts, presumably one that just tries to thicken the lines? If so I > > guess that'd be the least impactful way to approach the problem. I > > definitely don't have the knowledge for it, though. > > I haven't tried the Infinality patch you mentioned yet (or actually, > I don't remember, maybe I have, but in this case I paid no attention > to emboldened fonts) but it does sound interesting. I don't know > what the prospects of it being merged into upstream are though, so > maybe the change > to 90-synthetic.conf is the easier route... The infinality changes to freetype are extremely indigestible, unfortunately, at least to a non-expert; maybe to someone who works on this stuff all the time they're more obvious? The current patch set appears to be http://www.infinality.net/fedora/linux/zips/freetype-infinality-2.4.12-20130514_01-x86_64.tar.bz2 , I have not tried it to see if it actually/still does non-widening synthetic bold, or even if it still applies at all. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
