DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42577>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42577 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-18 08:14 ------- I've just taken a quick look at this patch. I must say that I'm not entirely happy with the approach. font-stretch for me should ideally be part of the font selection process and not just squeeze the font. Some font-families offer specially designed condensed or expanded font variants. At the moment, we're just using font-weight and font-style in the selection process but that's not enough. This also means we have to rethink the FontTriplet class as it wouldn't have 3 elements anymore, but 4. Only if there's no condensed/expanded variant available in the font selection should forced font stretching be used. Actually, just implementing like this would be fine by me, but putting the stretch value is the thing I really don't like here and what triggered my comment. When I've worked through most of my priorities in the next two or three months I'll try to find time to improve the whole font subsystem. It is something I care about but at the moment I have to concentrate my time on different things. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.