tags 376677 confirmed upstream severity 376677 important thanks Quoting Jan Willem Stumpel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I found the cause of this particular bug by looking at the source > (.sfd) files (source code of ttf-freefont-20060126b). Almost all > characters in FreeMono have width 600, but a few do not (which > should not be the case in a monospaced font). > > For instance in FreeMono.sfd the following characters have the > wrong width: > > 660: U1EA2, U1EA3, U1EA8, U1EA9, U1EB2, U1EB3 > 783: tcaron > 801: U0200, U0201 > 950: U0202, U0203 > > In FreeMonoBold.sfd we have: > > 578 (too small!): U048E, U0494, U04A6, U04AE, U04B4, U04B5, U04B8, > U04B9, U04B4, U04BB > 660: agrave, aacute > 788: UFFFD > 824: U0201 > 1010: amacron, U0203 > > I did not test oblique and bold-oblique, but I expect the results > will be similar. It appears that the advanceWidthMax value simply > is the highest of the "Width" values in each particular font. It > may be the Nth bug of xprint to take this value as the horizontal > spacing value for *all* characters, but the fact remains that in a > monospaced font, the width of all characters should be the same > (600 in this case). As this is rather fundamental, I propose to > raise the priority of this bug to "important".
Agreed. Indeed, Jan Willem, thanks a *lot* for taking care to report this *and* find the correct answer (I suppose). With your informaiton, it will probably be possible to produce a patch that I'll submit upstream. I just need some time for this..:-) Actually, I even wonder whether this spacing bug could be the cause for #177667 (and other merged bugs).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
