Le Fri, May 11, 2001, � 02:56:29PM -0500, Lars Clausen a �crit:
> Given that this would add another library dependence, I think it should be
> optional, but I'm willing to put some time into getting it up. Not for
> this release, obviously, but definitely before 1.0.
You're not actually advocating rasterising the fonts ourselves, are you ?
However, if you really are, then maybe this would give rotated text
(<kidding>I've already done this, bwahahahaha</kidding>).
Simple problem: how do you know what the font path is (call&parse "xset q",
OK), and how to access the non-local fonts (ban XFS-accessed fonts,
acceptable if we ban X terminals, OK).
(another, a bit dirty but probably effective *and* easy solution to render
Type1 fonts would be to simply download them into the Display PS renderer...
we keep some of X's "elegance", but we still add a bunch dependencies (DPS, and
a DPS client. We'd get bitten a bit by the latter, since DPS-X is not yet easily
packageable (because of Freeness issues with the AFPL half), and the former
DGS as done by the Gyve project has been unpackaged (dropped) in Debian.
Sucks but true).
> I haven't looked into how well it works, but it sounds better than waiting
> for Pango and the like.
We *will* have to use Pango when we can use it, anyway. I don't know for
you, but I really don't want to handle i18n and multiple scripts myself. The
Pango team has done it, already (well, sort of, otherwise we'd already just
linked it up).
> I've seen installations (BSD's in particular) that didn't have all the
> standard PostScript fonts for X, so only a few font selections were
> available. Is that better than just using the X fonts and risk worse
> printing?
What worse printing ? I'd think raster fonts are totally out of the
discussion, aren't they ?
-- Cyrille
--
Grumpf.
