148470 - Ban "-dt-*" (bitmap!!) fonts from Xprint

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core Graveyard :: Printing: Xprint, defect)

Description

[Roland Mainz]

[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).

Comment 1

[Roland Mainz]

Taking myself...

Comment 2

[Roland Mainz]

Attachment: Patch for 2002-05-24-08-trunk

Comment 3

[Roland Mainz]

Requesting r=/sr=/a{1.0.1}= ...

Comment 4

[Shanjian Li]

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.  

Comment 5

[Roland Mainz]

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

[Johnny Stenback (:jst)]

Comment on attachment 85866 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for 2002-05-24-08-trunk

sr=jst

Comment 7

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Checked in to trunk for Roland

Comment 8

[Roland Mainz]

Requesting a= for 1.0.1-branch...

Comment 9

[Randell Jesup [:jesup] (needinfo me)]

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

Comment 10

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Checked in to branch