On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:15:36AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 15:23 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:26:21PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > Wouter asked: > > > > Just out of curiosity, could you point me to arguments in favour of > > > > Xprint? > > > > > > http://www.dailynews.co.th/ > > > > > > QED > > > > Err. You're saying Xprint is the only print implementation that can > > print non-latin stuff properly and reliably? > > > > Yes, that's right. > > Unless you've taken particular pains to install your non-latin fonts the > right way and get them used by mozilla the right way, the default > mozilla printer just renders them with empty boxes, making the text a > tad difficult to read. Xprint manages to print them legibly without > making further particular efforts to set up the fonts. I won't claim the > result is always picture perfect (I'm expecting quality to improve with > X11R7.1), but at least you can read it. > > There is apparently some new FreeType support in mozilla printing which > might change things (see http://www.jw-stumpel.nl/stestu.html#T9.3.2), > but Xprint works where the default mozilla postscript driver does not. I didn't set Mozilla up with anything special at all, and you might remember me showing you dailynews and Russian/Japanese/etc sites rendering correctly, all the way back at LCA 2005, I think it was. ;) Cheers, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature