On 17 Dec 2002 06:05:42 +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:22:22AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > On 16 Dec 2002 18:26:26 +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:24:14AM -0600, FVWM CVS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Log message:
> > > > * New {Title,Button}Style style StretchedPixmap
> > >
> > > I've added this because I think this useful and because it was a one
> > > line patch after the MultiPixmap merge. But in fact I think that
> > > something like "FitStretchedPixmap" is more useful (an other "one
> > > line patch"): stretch the pixmap only if it is to big for the
> > > destination. Does someone has a better name than "FitStretchedPixmap"?
> >
> > Actually I think that the current TitleStyle Pixmap should behave this
> > way, so no new option is needed. It seems pretty useless currently and
> > we may just change it to be more useful when sprained.
>
> I am agree. Any objection? There are 2 pbs: (i) backwarde compatibility
> and (ii) ressource usage (e.g., when you resize a window at small size
> each buttons will be resized).
I would not consider (i) as a problem, it was never documented that the
image is centered when smaller than title, so a user can't rely on this.
But I am not sure what is (ii). I thought that when the image is larger it
should not be shrunk, only truncated, so please explain (ii) again.
> > If you are at it, can you please fix the problem with Pixmap/TiledPixmap
> > in 2.5.x. An image is drawn at +2+2 if title is raised/sunken. I think
> > that the correct way is to handle it as in 2.4.x. I.e. it should always
> > start at +0+0 and the following commands should only add/remove relief
> > over the static image rather than shifting it.
> >
> > TitleStyle Active -- raised
> > TitleStyle Active -- flat
>
> One can see this as a new functionality: it is useless to draw the
> pixmap under the relief. Say you have a 22x22 image button set with
> Pixmap on a 22x22 raised title bar button, then it seems clear to me
> that we should resize the image button to 18x18 and apply it at +2+2.
If you can shrink the 22x22 icon to 18x18, it is ok (but is it nice?).
It is also fine with me to truncate this icon to the central 18x18 region.
What is not fine with me is to trancate it to the left-top 18x18 region
throwing away 4 right and 4 bottom pixels complitelly.
> Maybe for TiledPixmap we should always start at +0+0, I do not
> know. But I do not see pbs for Pixmap.
The problem is that the title width is fixed and it does not take into an
account relief at all, so image should not take relief into account too.
For me, if title height is not changed when you execute 2 commands above,
i.e. when relief is added or removed, the image should not be shifted.
Taking a central part and applying it to +2+2 would be the same.
> > > About names. I think that we should have a new Style which rotates
> > > (always CW) the TitleStyle decorations. What about
> > >
> > > RotateVerticalTitleDecor / !RotateVerticalTitleDecor
> >
> > I would like if it is _always_ rotated by -90/+90/+180 depending on the
> > rotation of the title text. So this +90/0 flag would be redundant for me.
> > I am pretty convinced we don't need unrotated vertical title decorations.
> >
> > LeftTitleRotatedCW - rotate both text and decorations by +90
> > !LeftTitleRotatedCW - rotate both text and decorations by -90
> >
> > The button order is not affected by this, only text/image rotation.
> > We should remove LeftTitleRotatedCCW, since we have !LeftTitleRotatedCW.
>
> Yes, but some decoration is symetric (a solid color, a centered gradient,
> some TiledPixmap decoration, RootTransparent) and the rotation of the
> decoration will use some resource. I see RotateVerticalTitleDecor as
> an attribute of the decoration. Yes, the rotation should follow the
> text rotation (but the individual buttons should not be rotated and
> the buttons set should be rotated CW).
For me, tiled images and even mini icons should always be rotated too! :)
A centered gradient in titles is rare, so rotating it is not a problem.
Of course for transparent parts rotation is void.
I can't imagine a titlebar design where this boolean flag would be useful.
But if you want to have it as boolean, I have no problem. I just think
that "Vertical" name would not be exact. Maybe [!]UseTitleDecorRotation,
(defaulting to 1) since we may have +180 rotation too.
Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
