imacarthur wrote:

> On 30 Nov 2008, at 13:07, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
>>
>> I tested, and it seems to work okay on Windows and Linux/Xft, but there
>> seem to be some "off-by-one" errors with some glyphs at the right border
>> (e.g. the capitol A in your example). However, since this obviously is
>> glyph dependent, I think this must be a bug in the font itself(?).
> 
> It is possibly in the font glyphs, but also (sometimes) I think there 
> are maybe "rounding errors" introduced by the anti-aliasing when the 
> font is rendered. I'm not sure though.
> Sometimes it looks worse on this Mac (for example) than it does under 
> linux/XFT, using ostensibly the same font, and I assume that is because 
> the anti-aliasing mechanisms are different. I could be talking rubbish.

Sounds reasonable. And I don't think that we (you?) should do much more 
WRT this, but I wanted to have mentioned it. Maybe I didn't see a very 
light gray pixel, but it was there (because of anti-aliasing, as you wrote).

>> Two implementation notes:
>>
>> (1) I wonder if the Windows-specific defines need to be in fl_font.cxx.
>> IMHO they should be in fl_font_win32.cxx (without the enclosing "#ifdef
>> WIN32").
>
> That was my original intent, but the defines need to be set before the 
> inclusion of windows.h, which is done indirectly in fl_font.cxx via 
> "FL/x.H".
> So I had to put the defines in fl_font.cxx itself - but they should have 
> no impact anywhere else, so I guess it is safe enough (but see below...)

Okay, I see...

>> (2) This update definitely breaks WindowsNT and probably Windows9x 
>> version
>> support. I started a RFC about future Windows version support in
>> fltk.development [1] - please discuss there, and we should add a summary
>> or decision here later. I know that we could try to load the offending
>> function "GetGlyphIndicesW" dynamically, but IMHO we should only do this
>> if needed.
> 
> Yes - this is a problem I knew I was creating, even as I created it. I 
> do not know what is best here.

  [...snip...]

> If we decide we should try to, I will write the code, it should be 
> straightforward (I'll follow the pattern I used in screen_xywh.cxx) but 
> I have no means of testing it properly, so we might have to find someone 
> with an older Windows machine. I don't even have a Win2K box now, the 
> oldest I have is WinXP.

I have access to Win2K and WinNT4/SP6, and I intend to build a virtual 
machine with Win98 - if we need it, I can probably test it.

Albrecht
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev

Reply via email to