Closed
Bug 148470
Opened 22 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
Ban "-dt-*" (bitmap!!) fonts from Xprint
Categories
(Core Graveyard :: Printing: Xprint, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.0.1
People
(Reporter: roland.mainz, Assigned: roland.mainz)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
1.18 KB,
patch
|
timeless
:
review+
jst
:
superreview+
jesup
:
approval+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
[Spin-off of bug 147743 ("Xprint prints some (non-scaleable) bitmap fonts far too small")]: We need to "ban" all the "-dt-*" aliases from Xprint since they will be the default fonts for the Solaris version of Netscape but are _all_ bitmap fonts (BAD).
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•22 years ago
|
||
Taking myself...
Assignee: katakai → Roland.Mainz
QA Contact: Roland.Mainz → katakai
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.0.1
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
Attachment #85866 -
Flags: review+
Comment 4•22 years ago
|
||
I am not very familiar with xprint issues. I understood why you want to add "dt*" to rejection list. Could you explain if there is any possible negative impact by removing "-urw.*;scalable=false;" from rejection list? r=shanjian if you are confident with the consequence.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•22 years ago
|
||
Shanjian Li wrote: > I am not very familiar with xprint issues. It's a quality issue. Xprint can use both scaleable outline fonts (printer-builtin fonts and PS Type1; Solaris Xprt can use TrueType, too (TrueType support for Linux Xprt comes ~~ next month)) and bitmap fonts (this is a feature (see the "myths" section in the Xprint FAQ (http://puck.informatik.med.uni-giessen.de/people/gisburn/work/xprint/Xprint_FAQ.txt) - some people tend to use this feature to shoot against Xprint... ;-( ) which makes it possible to print _anything_ even if you do not have matching fonts). However forcing _always_ bitmap fonts will make the printout quality worse than neccesary. Since all the "-dt-*" fonts are bitmap fonts the Xprint module will prefer them even when there are better-looking scaleable outline fonts available (I think this is a bug in our fontmetrics system). > I understood why you want to add > "dt*" to rejection list. Could you explain if there is any possible negative > impact by removing "-urw.*;scalable=false;" from rejection list? Well, it was never enabled due the performance regression caused by that code on the main display (I am going to fix that soon, maybe this week) - however I personally do not care if the initalisation of the Xprint module (e.g. the first time when it's being used) takes 1sec more with the ban enabled (main display is not affected). I did not had problems with the URW fonts yet nor was the ban "active" yet, therefore I can live with the consequences... :) > r=shanjian if > you are confident with the consequence. Yup, I am confident.
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 85866 [details] [diff] [review] Patch for 2002-05-24-08-trunk sr=jst
Attachment #85866 -
Flags: superreview+
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Blocks: xprint_machv
Comment 7•22 years ago
|
||
Checked in to trunk for Roland
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•22 years ago
|
||
Requesting a= for 1.0.1-branch...
Comment 9•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 85866 [details] [diff] [review] Patch for 2002-05-24-08-trunk Approved for 1.0 branch. Please remove mozilla1.0.1+ when it's fixed and add fixed1.0.1
Attachment #85866 -
Flags: approval+
Updated•22 years ago
|
Updated•16 years ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•