On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 04:15:09PM +0800, Chia-I Wu wrote: > I find these two paragraphs conflicting. If we use the sum of > FONT_ASCENT and FONT_DESCENT to match against, then all glyphs are > within the 8x8 cell, provided FT_Set_Pixel_Size( face, 8, 8 ) returns > success. Or put it in another way, it means when the face is scalable, > we should set > x_scale = 8 / ( face->bbox.xMax - faec->bbox.xMin ), > y_scale = 8 / ( face->bbox.yMax - faec->bbox.yMin ), > so that all glyphs are within the 8x8 cell. And this is really not > intuitive. Any comment?
I found this mail http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/freetype-devel/2004-07/msg00011.html and BDF_Set_Pixel_Sizes was changed because otherwise FTC_Manager_LookupSize would return error if we set scaler.width = face->available_sizes->width; scaler.height = face->available_sizes->height; scaler.pixel = TRUE; But shouldn't the scaler be set up like this: scaler.width = face->available_sizes->x_ppem; scaler.height = face->available_sizes->y_ppem; scaler.pixel = TRUE; ? > I also have a (maybe stupid) question. Why don't we simply have > > FT_Set_Pixel_Sizes( face, w, h ) > { > FT_Set_Char_Size( face, w, h, 72, 72 ): > } > > ? (More looking forward to comments on this question actually) -- Regards, olv _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
