I just replied to the xpert thread about a scalable version of fixed
with a quick not on scaling arbitrary scalable fixed-width fonts to
match a given XLFD.
In doing so, I discovered that fixed, aka:
-misc-fixed-medium-r-semicondensed--13-120-75-75-c-60-iso8859-1
has an ASCENT of 11 and DESCENT of 2 (totalling 13), whereas
-b&h-Luxi Mono-medium-r-normal--[9.75 0 0 13]-0-75-75-m-0-iso8859-1
while intended to match those metrics ends up with an ASCENT of 13 and
DESCENT of 3.
IOW, the pixels size of the bitmap fonts matches the sum of ascent and
descent but the pixel size of fonts rendered with the version of the
ft2 backend I have installed instead matches just the ascent.
Because of a quirk in how libfont gets compiled, the type1 render is
used by the font server for .pfa and .pfb, so I can compare the two
backends for type1 fonts. The type1 backend also uses the specified
pixelsize for ascent rather than the sum of ascent+descent.
Perhaps the bdf fonts are mis-named? Or is this an expected differece
between monospace and charbox fonts?
As a side note, the type1 backend includes RAW_PIXEL_SIZE in addition
to RAW_POINT_SIZE in xlsfonts -ll output. That might be useful for
the ft2 backend to support. (It is of course 1000 for typical t1
fonts and probably 2048 for typical ttf fonts.)
-JimC
_______________________________________________
Fonts mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
