Am Dienstag, 10. April 2007 18:17 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: > Georg Baum wrote: > > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > > > > >> I think you are mixing up the dialog and the work area issues. > >> > > > > Yes, I do, but on purpose. > > > I knew you did ;-) > > >> This is a > >> dialog issue here, if we know that some font works in all cases, we can > >> (and maybe should) force the dialog to use it. We are not going to use > >> the document side hack in the GUI. > >> > > > > We definitely should not force the dialog font (apart from the fact that it > > is impossible to force the font because qt will change it to something else > > if it thinks that it ought to do so). If I set a font in qtconfig I expect > > that it is used in all dialogs and menus of qt programs. > > It is fine to use a replacement if a certain symbol is not available (and > > this is what qt does), > It that is so, how do you explain that Qt didn't manage to use a proper > alternative font in Uwe's case?
I can't. I only know what the doc says (http://doc.trolltech.com/4.2/qfont.html#details): "If a chosen font does not include all the characters that need to be displayed, QFont will try to find the characters in the nearest equivalent fonts. When a QPainter draws a character from a font the QFont will report whether or not it has the character; if it does not, QPainter will draw an unfilled square." My experience is that this info is correct, and on my system this works quite well. I only now notice that the font was hardcoded in the .ui file. What happens if you don't write any font in the .ui file? > > And I fail to see why the math fonts as used in the workarea are a hack. > > Surely they don't use unicode, but this is not a hack, this is how they > > historically evolved. > > > IMHO LyX should evolve a bit more and switch to unicode. Maybe, but this does not explain why the current code should be a hack. > >> IMO, requiring a font covering all of Unicode for the GUI is a _must_. > >> > > > > Why? Please think about users. > > I do think about the user: why do we need to force the user to use the > Bakoma fonts if he'd prefer to use another one? Arial, Times, Lucida, > all have proper math symbols support apparently. Sorry, I don't get it: We should require a unicode font for the GUI only to be able to offer an additional choice for math fonts? This is a restriction. It would not be a restriction if the choice of an unicode GUI font would be optional. Of course it would be nice to have the option to use a different font for math, but this should be an option and not come with additional requirements. Apart from that I doubt that you can find a font that covers all needed symbols and looks good. > > From a users perspective this is an > > additional restriction (compared to 1.4). Of course you can't expect that > > the navigate menu wil display correctly for some CJK docs if you don't have > > a font with CJK installed, but why should somebody who never uses CJK not > > be allowed to use his favourite (latin-only) font for the dialogs? > > > I never said he should not be allowed for the general GUI controls but, > for the list of symbols, I think it is safe to say that they shouldn't > and that they wouldn't care anyway. I did not see your other mail where you wrote that the font is hardcoded in the ui file until recently, so I assumed you where talking about the general dialog font. > Look at the page I just sent, Unicode symbols are quite widespread nowadays. > > http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fontsbyrange.html#u2190 > > AFAIS, "Arial" which is quite old and quite universally available and also quite ugly. It is on virtually all windows computers, but you will find a lot of unix/linux boxes that don't have it. Georg
