Re: XML file format - Linux vs Windows

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Tino Schwarze wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 11:09:04PM +0200, Cyrille Chepelov wrote:

Well, just let's not store the bounding box at all but let the UML
Class figure it out with the help of the renderer (it needs the
renderer anyway). IMHO this would require nothing more than an
invisible "redraw all" cycle after loading the file.

Sure. and of course, you never have any Connection (OrthConn, likely) 
linked to a connection point on the right side of the UML Class objects.

If the bounding box is "wrong" in the file, the connection gets messed
up anyway the first time someone clicks on the UML Cass.

I agree that the BB shouldn't be stored in the XML file.  There's simply no
use for it there.

No matter how we look at the problem, we need to come up with a way of
having a stable, reliable and repeatable way of computing text extents,
which should never depend on the scaling factor.

Agreed. But really: I don't think there is a reliable way of computing
text extends without depending on the actual resolution. There is a lot
of effort in fonts to accomodate different resolutions. And as far as I
know, fonts are always bound to specific resolutions and can change
their extents quite unexpectedly when switching to the next
bigger/smaller font size. Hopefully I'm a bit pessimistic here...

I would hope there's a way to turn that stuff off.  Sure, we'll get less
pretty fonts, but that doesn't matter as long as they are consistent.

Maybe we could simply ask the Pango people about that? They should be
very competent in font issues.

They should.  That would be the place to go.


Lars Clausen (| Hårdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I   |----------------------------
will defend to the death your right to say it."   | Where are we going, and
    --Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire  | what's with the handbasket?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]