On 4 March 2010 12:51, Mate Nagy <mn...@port70.net> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:44:04PM +0100, pancake wrote: > >> why do you need TTF? font rendering is a really complex stuff, in dwk > yes >> we were only planning to support monospaced fonts, calculate sizes > yes >> with changing size of fonts is really complex and cpu-intensive task and > yes >> i dont think it matters to the user. > no, sorry > > In non-uriel style, yes, font rendering is horribly complicated and an > entirely fucked up discipline, but I don't think a "real" widget set can > skip out on it. Bitmap fonts are fine for programming (and I even use it > for web browsing when it's dark and I switch the theme to > white-on-black), but often sub-pixel tuned ttf is just more comfortable > to read. > > Actually I wrote a similar widget set that I use in frtplot > (frtplot.port70.net), straight C and everything, and.. it only does > bitmap font rendering (no Unicode though). But I wouldn't want to use it > for software that isn't exclusively for programmers..
Well one design decision for the API I'm in favor with is not to provide any font-related functionality in the first version and leave font rendering up to the implementation. If someone writes an app he shouldn't bother about the fonts/colors etc, he should concentrate on the functionality -- this also enforces a consistent look among all programs that might use dwk. Cheers, Anselm
