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

[Hans Breuer <Hans Breuer org>]

At 20:11 17.05.04, Lars Clausen wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 15:19, Hans Breuer wrote:
> > At 14:14 14.05.04, Lars Clausen wrote:
> > >On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 22:15, Federico Maggi wrote:
> > > >       hi,
> > > > I am sorry if some similar post already exists.
> > > >
> >
> > There were many posts, but none of them had such a misleading subject 
> yet ;)
> > [For me "are no longer readable" sounds like a much more serious problem
> > than just some size mismatch.]
>
> Most of those were the Pango 1.2.4+ problem, where fonts indeed did get
> unreadable.

Yeah, but there is also stuff like :
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59364

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108293

In general there were (and always will be) issues with font matching 
between different backends/formats/engines. Usually not so bad as in the 
Pango 1.2.4 case - or the current case where some magic scaling 
approximation is broken again.

[...]

> > 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 ...
>
> Eeek!  First thing I think about there is the magic 70% size reduction
> that we introduced with Pango in the first place.  Always hated that
> thing, 'cause I totally didn't understand it.  Ugh.  Maybe we will have
> to have a 0.93-1 after all.

IIRC there was some explanation of it in lib/font.c having to do with 72 
dpi, 100 pixel huge fonts (Dia's original master font size) and maybe Dia's 
20 pixels are a centimeter. OTOH it may have been completely bogus ;-)

        Hans

-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org -----------
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along without it.                -- Dilbert