atters.
> >>
> >> I didn't investigate this at all. I did not even try to reproduce.
> >> Hence, this ping. Could one of you please look at this, confirm this
> >> really happens, and say what should be done about this? Thanks.
> >>
> >> And yes,
for lots
> of other operators (at least SOURCE) it obviously matters.
>
> I didn't investigate this at all. I did not even try to reproduce.
> Hence, this ping. Could one of you please look at this, confirm this
> really happens, and say what should be done about this? Thanks.
>
> And yes,
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Uli Schlachter wrote:
>
>
> So apparently this behaviour is by design, meaning that glyphs can only
> really be used with operator OVER any more (well, and some others). So
> let me ask this another why: Is this really a good behaviour?
>
I think
up with emoji" at GUADEC...
> > > >
> > > > > Uli
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S.: How relevant and up to date is the CC list here? I always
> > > get
> > > > > a
> > > > > &qu
> > ad.o
> > > > rg> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Right. In the future we would want to make it show glyphs
> > in
> > > > the input
> > > > >> order, ie. not separate color vs no
t; > >
>> > > >> Right. In the future we would want to make it show glyphs in
>> > > the input
>> > > >> order, ie. not separate color vs non-color. That's the order
>> > > required by
>> > > >> CSS for example. In
rder
> > > required by
> > > >> CSS for example. In a show-text-glyphs call with
> > > CAIRO_TEXT_CLUSTER_FLAG_BACKWARD,
> > > >> it might be desirable to show back-to-front.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:59 P
Clasen <
> > >> matthias.cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Uli Schlachter <psyc...@znc.in
> > > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 07.07.2017 15:23, Matthias Clasen wrote:
&g
; On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Uli Schlachter <psyc...@znc.in>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 30.06.2017 17:29, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2017 7:51 PM, "Matthias Clasen" <mcla...@redhat.com>
> >>>>
at, Jul 1, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Uli Schlachter <psyc...@znc.in>
> wrote:
> >>>> >> On 30.06.2017 17:29, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> >>>> >>> On Jun 30, 2017 7:51 PM, "Matthias Clasen" <mcla...@redhat.com>
> >>>> &g
n 30.06.2017 17:29, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>>> >>> On Jun 30, 2017 7:51 PM, "Matthias Clasen" <mcla...@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 17:02 +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote:
>>> >>>> On 28.06.2017
rote:
>> >> On 30.06.2017 17:29, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>> >>> On Jun 30, 2017 7:51 PM, "Matthias Clasen" <mcla...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 17:02 +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote:
>> >>>> On 28.
30, 2017 7:51 PM, "Matthias Clasen" <mcla...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 17:02 +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> >>>> On 28.06.2017 14:23, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> >>>>> All of you have asked me about the status of c
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Uli Schlachter wrote:
>
>>
>> Okay... so what is the new model? What happens when I draw a color glyph
>> with operator XOR and a red source?
>
>
> The red source
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> It would be great to know if this approach, following Behdad's
> recommendation, will be acceptable.
>
Thanks for the quick implementation. I quite like your changes and think
this is the right way to do it.
It would be great to know if this approach, following Behdad's
recommendation, will be acceptable.
Review of the changes in
https://github.com/matthiasclasen/cairo/tree/emoji-again would appreciated
as well.
I admit that I haven't thought about necessary documentation updates yet.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I had another go at this here: https://github.com/
> matthiasclasen/cairo/tree/emoji-again
>
I've spent some more time on this branch. It now uses paint only for
clusters that consists
purely of color
On Jun 30, 2017 7:51 PM, "Matthias Clasen" <mcla...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 17:02 +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28.06.2017 14:23, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > All of you have asked me about the status of color fonts in
> > cai
On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 17:02 +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28.06.2017 14:23, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > All of you have asked me about the status of color fonts in
> > cairo. There's
> > some discussion here:
>
> what was the solution to make th
On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 23:18 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I had another go at this here:
> https://github.com/matthiasclasen/cairo/tree/emoji-again
I rebased your old branch on top of 1.14.10 (the current stable):
https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/emoji/cairo-emoji-5-rebased-on-1.14.10.patch
I had another go at this here:
https://github.com/matthiasclasen/cairo/tree/emoji-again
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> All of you have asked me about the status of color fonts in cairo.
> There's some discussion here:
>
> https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-emoji/issues/36
>
> The remaining par
Hello,
All of you have asked me about the status of color fonts in cairo. There's
some discussion here:
https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-emoji/issues/36
The remaining part is indeed the cairo patchset. Matthias had a reworked
version, which Chris Wilson objected to. I agree with parts
23 matches
Mail list logo