Re: Font sizing (was Re: [dia] Windows created diagrams are no longer readable)

[Lars Clausen <lars raeder dk>]

On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 15:19, Hans Breuer wrote:wrote:
> By default Dia currently uses very weak hints to the font system which font 
> to use, like 'sans', 'serif', 'monospace' - that is : the first font in the 
> systems enumeration which is classified as being of the respective type. 
> Depending on your system for e.g. sans-serif this may be :
>
> 'Helvetica - on common Linux (if there is such)
> 'Luxi Sans' - with osx/X11
> 'Arial' - with win32 (either Pango/FT2 or Pango/win32 based)

Maybe we should try to fixate the actual font when used?  I.e. when I
select 'sans', it is recorded as Helvetica, so that other systems will
use that if present.  It will need to have a decent fallback to 'sans',
though.

> 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.

That diagram showed me a crash bug that was easily fixable, so it's
doubly good:)  

> 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 ...

Testing DPI interference...

> Confused (-;

Me too.

-Lars