Re: [Nautilus-list] Xft Anti-aliasing, Libart antialiasing?

[Darin Adler <darin bentspoon com>]

On 12/13/01 3:39 PM, "David Moles" <david moles vykor com> wrote:

> Now it looks like the one on the right is actually a smaller typeface.
> I'd be interested to know whether it's bold or not. It looks closer to
> what a high-res *paper* rendering of the font would be even at medium
> (i.e., non-bold) weight.

It's definitely not bold. Moses is right. The font rendering is being done a
different way, and the Nautilus rendering using the anti-aliased canvas is
getting much better results for some reason, even though both are supposed
to be using freetype2.

Moses, this is something you should take up with the Gtk folks on the
gtk-devel-list. Perhaps they can tell you why the font looks so much better
in Nautilus. I don't think the difference is Xft vs. libart, but perhaps it
is. Nautilus uses the freetype rendering code inside librsvg and eel to draw
into the canvas.

As an aside, there's a similar effect on my Macintosh. The anti-aliased type
rendered by Quark under Mac OS X looks *way* better than the type rendered
by QuickDraw under Mac OS 9 (or in Classic applications under Mac OS X).

    -- Darin