To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=18285
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 15 07:00:08 -0700 2005 ------- Since my computer motherboard was damaged I was offline for a week. Ok, let's get back at this bug: Re: npower I installed Ubuntu 5.10 which came with OpenOffice.org 1.9-129, and I can create a sample file you've suggested. However, you still need to have the "AR PL New Sung" font installed to see its effect. AR PL New Sung can be found here: http://www.study-area.org/apt/firefly-font/fireflysung-1.3.0.tar.gz It should be noted that, unfortunately, Ubuntu 5.10 chose to bundle freetype 2.1.7, while openSUSE has bundled freetype 2.1.10. So I'll have to compile freetype 2.1.10 & libXft 2.1.7 on Ubuntu again :(. Re: hdu Thank you very much for reviewing this patch. Let me see if I understand you right on the following issues: >Thanks a lot for the nice patch and for the english translations >of the comments. The CWS "fakebold" was created for this issue. Should it be called "fakestyle" instead? Because in the Linux X11 version, "fakeitalic" also needs to be emulated besides "fakebold". > The patch is expected to work very well from a stability standpoint. > There are some minor issues QA should take into consideration when > testing the CWS: > for fonts that cover a lot of the unicode range the "gamma enhancing" > is always turned on, so for these fonts also non-CJK glyphs are affected. This is true. Should somebody come up with a "universal font" that covers every codepoint someday, gamma enhancement over this "universal font" will have the inadvertent drawback on darkening non-CJK glyphs as well. It should be noted that most CJK fonts also contain alphanumeric characters (English and numbers) as well; BUT, they carry an appearance in consistent with the typeface such that gamma enhancement over these alphanumeric characters is actually a good thing - because it is the _typeface_ (not the characters) that benefits from it. Now if somebody is weird enough to mix typefaces, for instance, to transfer the alphanumeric glyphs from "Bitstream Vera Sans" and put them into "AR PL Mingti2L Big5", then the resultant font would cause the concern you mentioned. Otherwise, I don't think it's a serious issue at this point. > If this is no problem we should consider to turn it on for all fonts. > If it is a problem we should just use the gamma-boost for CJK unicodes. Actually I think most English fonts under Linux have their separate Bold font file; so they probably won't be affected. For users of other languages, I personally cannot tell if they would benefit from gamma-boost. But I am guessing it would be so because I rarely see any font that's too dark under Linux; only too blurry in most cases. > the bigger the font/zoom gets the less the artificial emboldening > is visible Are you suggesting we should turn on Gamma for font > 20 pt size too? It seems to me OOo on Windows also exhibits similar behavior. > does the synthetic italic look ok for rotated glyphs, > e.g. arabic digits in a vertical portion? Need to test it, we'll go back at this point later. > In the patch there was a small problem with the GlyphCache hashing. > If accidentally the hashes between the original and the synthetic > styles matched the wrong font was displayed. I'll ask Firefly to see if he can find a fix for it. -zero0w --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
