On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 15:19, Hans Breuer wrote: > At 14:14 14.05.04, Lars Clausen wrote: > >On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 22:15, Federico Maggi wrote: > > > hi, > > > I am sorry if some similar post already exists. > > > > > There were many posts, but none of them had such a misleading subject yet ;) > [For me "are no longer readable" sounds like a much more serious problem > than just some size mismatch.]
Most of those were the Pango 1.2.4+ problem, where fonts indeed did get unreadable. > > > I am using the same dia version (0.92.2) both on Windows (XP) and Linux > > > (GNU/Linux, debian/testing). > >Once the Windows version of it comes out, try 0.93, it uses font-config, > >so may agree more on fonts. > > even if there would be a font-config based build it wont solve the problem > which is (part of, but also read below) : > > _different fonts_ provide by any system will generate different sized > bounding boxes. There is no magic in Pango or font-config to resolve this > issue long time known in Dia land. > Note: this is not a matter of the platform you are running Dia on but a > matter of concrete font files. Ensure they are the same, and appropriately > mapped/named in you font configuation and the problem is gone. That is good to hear. I shall have to try that at work, where I've had somewhat of the same problem. > Sorry Lars - but I've a different understanding of the problem. I've tried > Dia on win32 with both backends Pango/win32 and default > font-config/Pango/FT2 and beside marginal different aliasing the sizes were > exactly the same. Good. I was afraid the different hinting implementations would add up. > Also aren't you comparing apples to elephants (Pango and Win32)? Shouldn't > that read FT2 and win32 font rendering ? Or did you mean font-configs font > list compared to the one provided by win32::EnumFontFamilies() ? Just too lazy to write win32 font rendering. > UPDATE: Repeating my test with 0.93 (they were originally done some month > ago with some 0.92 or even 0.91 ?) did show a IMO serious regression > though. Font sizes between the backends are no longer the same. > To test yourself try the attached UML-Test (original from Dias > distribution, I've put in an additional layer showing the UML Class box > sizes with Dia-0.90-win32. > Loading the file with 0.93(Pango/win32) shows some small deviation, some > few percent as expected. But loading the same file into .93(Pango/FT2) > shows that the boxes - and thus the reported text length - are about 30% > smaller. To me this looks like an unacceptable regression - I simply have > too much diagrams done with 0.90 ... Eeek! First thing I think about there is the magic 70% size reduction that we introduced with Pango in the first place. Always hated that thing, 'cause I totally didn't understand it. Ugh. Maybe we will have to have a 0.93-1 after all. -Lars _______________________________________________ Dia-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list FAQ at http://www.gnome.org/projects/dia/faq.html Main page at http://www.gnome.org/projects/dia
