"Norbert Hartl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 10:01 +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
On 23.09.2008, at 09:09, Andrew Tween wrote:
> Note that with a one-click app distribution, it isn't necessary to
> embed the fonts in the image.
> FreeType Plus looks for a folder named Fonts relative to the .image
> file, and loads any fonts it finds from there.
>
> Putting the font file(s) into the Fonts folder has these advantages...
>
> 1.The image isn't bloated. (embedding a 20Mb font file would grow
> the image by 20Mb)
> So, the default font could be a large Unicode one, for example
>
> 2.Easier to create a one-click app for distribution.
>
> 3.Easier to install the font files into the OS so that other
> applications can also use them.
>
> 4. Free fonts that don't allow embedding can be used (e.g.
> Bitstream). This widens the choice of available free fonts.
>
> The advantage to embedding the font file in the image is that it
> moves around with the .image file.
> Which for a one-click app isn't really an advantage at all :)
Cool!
We should actually think about moving more data into files... for
example, there are huge literal arrays
in UCSTable's class side initialize methods that are only there for
initializing the class a long time ago.
These would not even be needed to be read on startup.
Of course, this is violently against the "everything in the image"
philosophy of Squeak... but I guess
that any device one would want to run it on would have a filesystem of
some sort.
Or there could be a call that reads it in and keeps it in the image.
Easy for people they want to have it in their image.
FreeTypeFontProvider current embedFilesInDirectory: aDirectory
will do this
Norbert
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
