Re: [forum] some XFree86 5.0 questions...

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

 



On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:24:22PM +0100, Martijn Sipkema wrote:
> > GTK+/Qt/GNOME/KDE/Mozilla are all already using fontconfig/Xft for a
> > year or more, and they work very well for our needs while remaining
> > very simple.  fontconfig/Xft were developed in close cooperation with
> > the toolkits and major open source desktop projects so it's not
> > surprising that they work well for us.
> > 
> > STSF is much more complicated, and the complexity is not solving any
> > problem that we have.
> 
> Perhaps it solves problems others may have. And why not comment on the
> design problems you said STSF has?

If you aren't solving a problem that any of the main toolkits or
desktop environments/apps have, if fontconfig/Xft are empirically
deployed and work, and if we've already done the work to integrate
them, the burden of proof that we need to change is really on STSF
advocates.

GNOME 2.2 already has fontconfig/Xft as a hard requirement, and GTK
2.4 is planned to as well. KDE is making the shift also. Mozilla
already has. fontconfig/Xft are deployed.  The question is not what to
deploy but whether we should undo a lot of existing deployment and
start over. And convincing people to do that will not be easy; it will
require compelling rationale.

Are GTK/Qt/Mozilla the whole world? No, but they are an awfully large
part of the world that's relevant here.


The design problem with STSF can be summarized very concisely:
existing infrastructure does the job with much less complexity. Thus
at least most of the extra complexity in STSF doesn't make
sense.


It may be interesting to do a Pango-level library based on
fontconfig/Xft that would be shared by multiple toolkits; but it needs
to build on fontconfig/Xft, not replace them.  It also needs to be
developed in consulation with the toolkit and desktop developers, or
it won't be right for them.

The reason fontconfig/Xft were rapidly adopted is because the design
was based on consultation with toolkit and desktop developers, and
thus met our needs.

Our #1, overriding, above-all-else need is to have a single font
configuration system that spans X11, printing, and so on.  fontconfig
is such a system. So we're going to be very reluctant to give it up.

> > Aside from the technical issues, STSF is simply too late.
> 
> I doubt that.
> 
> > fontconfig/Xft have already been adopted by both GTK+ and Qt which are
> > the major toolkits, and we aren't interested in having another system.
> 
> There may be others who use X without these toolkits. And there are other
> toolkits. Do you speak for these too, assuming you speak for all GTK+
> and QT developers?

I don't claim to speak for anyone, I'm just telling you my impression
from the contacts and information that I have. You are free to ask
anyone directly.

By all means, I encourage you to disregard what I have to say and make
your own evaluation.

Havoc


[Index of Archives]     [X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Questions]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [Samba]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux