On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:07:09 -0600
Federico Mena Quintero feder...@novell.com wrote:
I'm arguing for committing openSUSE's patch based on the following
unquestionable criteria:
Do you have any numbers on the glyph coverage of these two characters in
a variety of common fonts? Are either of
Am Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:17:50 -0500
schrieb Yu Feng rainwood...@gmail.com:
Hi Federico,
If I can have a word on this:
The big circle is wider than most characters.
Compare the following 3 patterns: (10 chars, monospace)
●●
••
1234567890
When people type in a
Am Dienstag, den 20.01.2009, 11:59 +0100 schrieb Christian Dywan:
Am Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:17:50 -0500
schrieb Yu Feng rainwood...@gmail.com:
Hi Federico,
If I can have a word on this:
The big circle is wider than most characters.
Compare the following 3 patterns: (10 chars,
Fedora has a (currently unapplied?) patch in its gtk2 package which
changes GtkEntry's invisible-char defualt from * to • (Unicode
0x2022 BULLET).
openSUSE has a patch that changes the invisible-char to ● (Unicode
0x25CF BLACK CIRCLE).
I'm arguing for committing openSUSE's patch based on the
Hi Federico,
If I can have a word on this:
The big circle is wider than most characters.
Compare the following 3 patterns: (10 chars, monospace)
●●
••
1234567890
When people type in a password they don't expect it to look much longer
than what has been typed, right?
Regards,
Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
openSUSE has a patch that changes the invisible-char to ● (Unicode
0x25CF BLACK CIRCLE).
What happens when the current font is missing that character? Will it
try to find another font that has it, or will there be a manual fallback
that uses '*' instead? The
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 04:14 +0200, Xan Lopez wrote:
How is this different from bug
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83935 that was committed
some months ago? It even uses your favorite character!
Argh, I'm an idiot. As usual, Garnacho created the perfect patch.
What happened is
