At 19:15 25.05.03 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: >Hi, > >Hans Breuer <Hans@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I know. As noted in my previous mail. Yet I'm still not able to >> compile it with msvc. > >That can surely be sorted out. > Sure it can. But you are probably developing long enough to know how long it takes to implement a solution you aren't convinced of, especially when not getting paid for it ... >> And I'm still not convinced it is useful on win32 in it's current >> shape. One of the goals of Pango's fontconfig usage was to use the >> *same* font configuration with different backends. This goal is >> certainly not reached on win32. > >It could be considered to move the win32 backend to fontconfig and to >implement a fontconfig API on top of the Win32 font selection. > Please the other way around. First implement a win32 concept compatible fontconfig and _only than_ port pangowin32 to use it. But - who does? I've probably had enough versions of code against X Font concept limitations. >> >IMO we should render text with the same backend on all platforms. Same >> >holds true for selecting fonts. We use PangoFT2 and fontconfig since >> >they provide a platform-independent architecture for this. >> > >> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113681 should have had >> some additional notes of mine, but cause it already is in the state >> of WONTFIX without them, here they are: > >Bugzilla states are something that can be easily changed. If you don't >agree with the reslution, feel free to reopen the bug. That is >something we are doing frequently. > When both maintainers have made their decision this appears to be rather useless ... >> Feel free to have IMHO impossible goals: >> - having the *exactly* same results with fonts on different >> platforms would require to use the same font file (may be >> possible with M$ webfonts) > >It is indeed a long-term goal to allow the user to include all >resources in the XCF file. BTW, AFAIK webfonts is not a Microsoft >invention. It is specified as part of CSS2. > I didn't mean it as buzz word but was refering to the concrete true type fonts from them which probably improve most of the Linux installations. >> - Delivering font vectors would be possible as a PangoWin32 >> extensions as well. But I'm still not sure how much looking >> into the future is acceptable. Almost two years ago Sven >> had the same reasoning against the 'Pango Backend Abstraction' >> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2001-August/msg00627.html >> The only thing GIMP currently does is rendering to bitmap ... > >We will add support for converting Text to Vectors in a time frame of >a few weeks, definitely before the next release. After all it is very >simple and gimp-freetype shows how to do it. > So my interpolation of the progress since 2001 to some weeks in the future was wrong. >> - affine transformation on fonts (or better text) would probably >> be done with the bitmap (not with the vector ?). With more >> backends supporting rendering to bitmap it would be simple >> to keep the GIMP code the same for all platforms. > >Of course we don't want to transform the bitmap. Freetype allows us to >specify a transformation matrix before the glyphs are rendered to >bitmaps. This is a feature we absolutely rely on. > Some weeks in the future ? >In the long term I'd like to see this functionality in Pango and I >would also like to see an abstracted render API similar to what you >suggested. But since we need features that only PangoFT2 can offer at >the moment and since there is no substantial problem using PangoFT2 on >Win32, I don't think we have much choice. > This is what I tried to start with the Pango Backend Abstraction thread http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2001-August/msg00612.html I tried to get something similar again to support Dia 0.91/win32 : http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94791 (2002-10-03) And now it is the reason why The GIMP _must_ rely on pangoft2. If all major applications implement their own work-arounds why should Pango be changed ever ? >> Anyway: the PangoFt2/fontconfig thing is probably a WONTFIX for >> me. As a result my GIMP version will diverge from the CVS version ... > >Please don't call it GIMP then. But I'd rather have this discussed >before we see a fork here. I wonder why your reaction is that drastic. > I don't plan to distribute it. And for a very short time I had the impression we were discussing the issue. But since your WONTFIX I have the impression that the usage of (pango)ft2 is already enscribed in stone. To me the right way to go is to implement the abstraction during the usage in a demanding application and have the required patches for Pango in the first place. See again: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94791 and: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107668 Hans -------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org ----------- Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it. -- Dilbert
