On 17 Jan 2009, at 18:39, Fabien Costantini wrote:
> Under mac os x mac there was a height problem, i fixed that descent  
> provides a compatible height with fltk 1.1.
> Now if you compare the fltk1.1 input demo with 1.3 we get exactly  
> the same line spacing and the default font is not eaten anymore  
> because of the descent problem.

Yes - I saw that you checked in changes for that... Thanks.

> Now concerning the xft vs non xft, what matters to me is that  
> whatever the configuration is, we have a text that renders a the  
> same place with the same size.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not yet the case under linux as you can see,  
> I.e in the 'input' demo, the text width is obviously bigger on 1.3  
> than in 1.1.
> I don't yet if it can be adressed or how, but I'll investigate that.

It was mainly the linux/Xlib/XFT case I was thinking about. I am not  
sure that we even can "fix" it, as the methods used to render the  
glyphs are quite different between Xlib and XFT, so that even if "the  
same" font is used, it can appear differently sized and positioned  
(because XFT is doing anti-aliasing and sub-pixel positioning and so  
forth, whilst the Xlib renderer does not - it is more like pixmaps  
and integers.)

This is compounded, of course, by the fact that usually it is not  
even "the same" font, even if it has a similar name, the underlying  
font files contain different details, hints etc.. So the glyphs are  
going to appear different anyway.

I am not sure that there is even anything to "fix" here - we render  
the font glyphs, and they just *are* the size, shape and position  
that they are...

It does seem to be true that the XFT glyphs seem to be spaced wider  
than the Xlib glyphs when we render them, and I wonder if we should  
be handling kerning or something, differently from what we are doing,  
to make things a little narrower.
But trying to make them actually "the same" seems to me to be  
impractical - ideas, anyone?

-- 
Ian

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

Reply via email to