On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 15:19, Hans Breuer wrote:
> At 14:14 14.05.04, Lars Clausen wrote:
> >On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 22:15, Federico Maggi wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > I am sorry if some similar post already exists.
> > >
>
> There were many posts, but none of them had such a misleading subject yet ;)
> [For me "are no longer readable" sounds like a much more serious problem
> than just some size mismatch.]
Most of those were the Pango 1.2.4+ problem, where fonts indeed did get unreadable.
Yeah, but there is also stuff like : http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59364
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108293
In general there were (and always will be) issues with font matching between different backends/formats/engines. Usually not so bad as in the Pango 1.2.4 case - or the current case where some magic scaling approximation is broken again.
[...]
> Loading the file with 0.93(Pango/win32) shows some small deviation, some > few percent as expected. But loading the same file into .93(Pango/FT2) > shows that the boxes - and thus the reported text length - are about 30% > smaller. To me this looks like an unacceptable regression - I simply have > too much diagrams done with 0.90 ...
Eeek! First thing I think about there is the magic 70% size reduction that we introduced with Pango in the first place. Always hated that thing, 'cause I totally didn't understand it. Ugh. Maybe we will have to have a 0.93-1 after all.
IIRC there was some explanation of it in lib/font.c having to do with 72 dpi, 100 pixel huge fonts (Dia's original master font size) and maybe Dia's 20 pixels are a centimeter. OTOH it may have been completely bogus ;-)
Hans
-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org ----------- Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it. -- Dilbert
_______________________________________________ Dia-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list FAQ at http://www.gnome.org/projects/dia/faq.html Main page at http://www.gnome.org/projects/dia
