Subject: Re: Rant (Was Re: printing in gnome port)
From: Paul Rohr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 19 2001 - 12:09:35 CST
At 11:24 PM 2/18/01 -0500, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
>Let me start off with stating that my opinion of fonts on X just plain
Yes, they most certainly do.
>From X fonts, you can get most (all?) of those metrics that we're interested
>in (bounding boxes come to mind). We'll also (of course) have the font names
>at our disposal. Unfortunately, that means that there isn't necessarily a
>1-1 mapping between the DISPLAY fonts and PS printer fonts. So WYSIWYG isn't
>*necessarily* true, unfortunately. Also (IIRC), all X-fonts aren't
Whoa. Hang on a second.
My understanding was that as long as we can locate an actual Type 1 or TTF
font file, then we can autogenerate the real printer metrics needed for
WYSIWYG output. True or false?
Is there some usage scenario where X provides access to display fonts, but
does so in a way which makes it impossible for the AbiWord process to locate
the corresponding raw font files? I can think of two cases:
- there is no printer font at all, so WYSIWYG doesn't matter
- there is a font, so WYSIWYG matters, but we can't locate it
I don't care about the first case, but please, please tell me X isn't so
broken that we can't find some way to work around the second.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 19 2001 - 12:02:35 CST