On Tuesday 19 February 2002 08:27, Keith Packard wrote: | Around 23 o'clock on Feb 18, Vadim Plessky wrote: | > IIRC we were already discussing PANOSE matching once. | > There is an opinion that PANOSE matching not flexible enough, and there | > are better ways to do matching. | | PANOSE matching is included in CSS2, but it's not required. It has the | advantage of being relatively well documented, if not entirely accurate.
well, it's difficult to tell what is required in CSS2 and what is not - as there is no CSS2 Test Suite which you can use to claim conformance. Situation is even worser: there is no CSS2 Test Suite in development, and will nver have it, as far as I know. My attitude to PANOSE is rather neutral. It's nice to have it but, to my best knowledge, HStem/VStem is better. [...] | | > Yes, there is! CSS2 is not flexible enough, besides none of browser | > vendors (to my best knoledge) is going to implement Fonts specification | > from CSS2. | | Mozilla does the required parts of CSS2 (names, weights and sizes), but | doesn't use panose or stem sizes. so far, all modern browsers use font names, weights and sizes. :-) Problem starts when you request one font, and get another. | | > Therefor, I recommend you to use CSS3 properties (Font module) instead | > of implementing obsolete (before becoming live!) CSS2. | | I'll go get the CSS3 draft and look it over. My suspicion is that CSS3 O, thanks, it will be very kind of you! | will look a lot like CSS2 with even more optional fields to match on; | that's fine, it's just more different kinds of data to examine. Good point with CSS3 that it's modular. You don't need to have to implement a "complete" CSS3 specification to claim conformance, you can go just for CSS3 Box Model and that's it! (or, add Fonts module like in your case...) Therefor, it can be more easy to follow CSS3, instead of CSS2. Of course CSS3 is based on CSS2, but some stupidness (but not all!) of CSS2 specs was corrected in later version of CSS3. | | > P.S. I am curious: are you going to implement this for upcoming XF | > 4.3.0? | | Yes. Xft has already been replaced with a new version which is now | dependent on a non-X font configuration library; tuning that library is | the current plan, I believe it will be relatively complete when a more | standard font matching scheme is in place. Good! | | Mozilla and Gtk+ 2.0 are already ported to the new library. Both look | quite nice, although the matching doesn't do the CSS2 weight replacement | yet. Of course, the core clients are already there as well. Qt will | take a bit of work and I haven't done that yet. Also nice to hear. Are there any Gtk+ 2.0 apps around? It seems GNOME is still not ported to Gtk+ 2.0, but I am very curious to test these new versions of Gtk+ and apps based on it. | | Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team Compaq Cambridge Research | Lab | | -- Vadim Plessky http://kde2.newmail.ru (English) 33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html KDE mini-Themes http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/ _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
