[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: KWord and bitmap fonts
From:       Nicolas Goutte <nicog () snafu ! de>
Date:       2002-07-21 23:54:59
[Download RAW message or body]

On Montag, 22. Juli 2002 00:19, Thomas Zander wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 21 July 2002 23:22, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > I would really like to know why we cannot support bitmap fonts in KWord.
> >
> > When at the end of 2001, I reported display problems with bitmap fonts, I
> > was told it was because they were bitmap fonts. However in the meantime
> > all these bugs were fixed.
>
> Ehh, we disallowed bitmapped fonts then, that is why they are fixed.

No, David really fixed all of the problems and not by putting a cloak on them!

http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-cvs&m=101404277810925&w=2

(The start of the idea was at: 
http://lists.kde.org/?l=koffice-devel&m=101092463312544&w=2 )

>
> its quite simple; a bitmapped font will have its outline rendered before
> distribution and have an exact number of pixels at all times. If I take a
> font for my monitor (72dpi) and print it on paper then I will get a font
> that is 600/72 = 8 times as small font on paper.

> For this and other reasons Postscript does not allow bitmapped fonts, so we
> can't print them anyway.

Well, it is not a problem of PostScript. As far as I know, type 3 fonts are 
still supported by PostScript.

>
> If we try to scale that font the results will not be pretty. For that
> reason there is an option in the X config that disallows X to scale
> bitmapped fonts. For many distros that option is default.

This option does not exist anymore for XFree 4.x (:unscaled is still accepted 
but not respected anymore.) However this could still be a problem for users 
of XFree 3.x.

> This means that we can't have bitmapped fonts that scale, since only a
> small percentage of people will be able to use them, and the results for
> these people will not look good.

Here I disagree. The result is perhaps not perfect, but well enough.

>
> Furthermore; scaling fonts will give rounding errors. Different rounding
> errors for different X versions, different font foundries etc. This makes
> WYSIWYG a pain to get right.
>
> Also using bitmapped fonts in WYSIWYG means using a resolution considerably
> higher then the one on screen. Using scaled bitmapped fonts (if available
> in the first place) means that those fonts have to be scaled first. This is
> slow and memory consuming. Consider what the implications would be of using
> 300pt fonts _all_ the time :)

No, scaled bitmap fonts are not that slower than Type 1 fonts (tested also 
with 100pt.) For type 1 fonts too, you also have to calculate them first 
before displaying.

>
> > I thought that the display was already made as print and as I do not see
> > any problem with bitmap fonts (not even when printing or at higher zooms)
> > I really do not understand.
>
> Printing at higher zooms?  Can you zoom your paper?

"printing *or* at higher zoom"
not "printing *and* higher zoom"

(I meant display at higher zooms.)

> Anyway; KWord is suppost to do font substitution (well Qt is :) at print
> time, for the simple reason that bitmap fonts are not possible in
> Postscript. But if you print a Helvetica or other common font chances are
> high that ghostscript or the postcript printer will have that font in
> vector form so it looks good for you.

Perhaps, and you will get bugs from people wanting to use Helvetica for print 
but who cannot, as the font is bitmapped on their system.

And even if they install a type 1 font, KWord will refuse, as it will only see 
the bitmap font, which KWord will reject.

>
> > In any case, it is not by forbidding bitmap fonts in KWord's GUI that you
> > are gettting rid fo them:
> > - the import filters still uses them.
> > - if the KDE's default font is a bitmap font, KWord default font becomes
> > a bitmap font too.
> > - on system with bitmap fonts, there is the font "Clearlyu" who makes the
> > whole Unicode range. So even with another font, you get a bitmap font
> > indirectly.
>
> If so; please fix. I doubt it though.

Too late! KWord would need a font substitution system. That is neither message 
nor feature neutral. (No, QT's font substitution system does not work, as the 
bitmap font exists!)

And it still does not solve the problem with Clearlyu.

I had also thought about adding an option to allow bitmapped fonts, but that 
too is not message neutral and it does not solve any of the problems.

>
> > If this problem was *so* important, it would have needed to be treated
> > accordingly. And why are the other KOffice programs still allowing
> > bitmaps fonts then?
>
> All WYSIWYG applications are not. What is your point here?

I thought that KPresenter was WYSIWYG. I still think it is!

>
> Please read the explanations I gave almost a year ago on this list as well.
>
> Thank you.

Have a nice day/evening/night!

> - --
> Thomas Zander                                          
> zander@planescape.com We are what we pretend to be -----BEGIN PGP
> SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE9OzORCojCW6H2z/QRAohrAJ9ks7vDZDAolOvsBj+sIPlxHP6sjQCgiWzB
> b6IzlU0sRRDKeCOa3Tov1yE=
> =gLpQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> koffice-devel mailing list
> koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
> http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel

_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]