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

Re: latest unstable and Xft font rendering



On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 13:31, Bradley Shuttleworth wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As far as I know, the settings have moved out of /etc/X11/XftConfig and
> into /etc/fonts/fonts.conf.

That's only if fontconfig is used - Gnome2.2 uses fontconfig, not sure
on Mozilla.

> 
> I'm afraid I can't give any advice on how to manage that file ... I
> simply use a recent Gnome2 control-center package, which does (most)
> things automagically.
> 
> Good Luck,
> Brad.
> 
> On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:59, Nick Monkman wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I am using the latest gnome bins from sid and am quite happy with it.
> > However, one thing is confusing to me. I recently decided to try the
> > mozilla-snapshot package. The font rendering was antialiased, which was
> > okay, but looked terrible on pages with light text on a dark background.
> > As I understand it, the newer versions of mozilla use Xft for font
> > rendering, so I decided to try to disable it. 
> > 
> > First of all, changing anything in unix.js had no effect. I discovered
> > eventually that this is because (I think) mozilla doesn't so any of it's
> > own antialiasing anymore - it uses gtk / xft somehow (and I am not clear
> > how). So I decided to try changing settings in my /etc/X11/XftConfig
> > file, using everything from match statements like:
> > 
> > match
> > 	any size < 15
> > 	any size > 8
> > edit
> > 	antialias = false;
> > 
> > to completely deleting (renaming) this file. This had no effect. My
> > gnome fonts were still antialiased, both on gnome widgets (looks okay)
> > to mozilla-snapshot (looks terrible on aforementioned pages). Finally I
> > just set GDK_USE_XFT=0. This disables, as you probably know, all Gnome2
> > Xft rendering, as far as I can tell. This is okay, but I'd like know why
> > editing my XftConfig file had no effect, as I would like to use
> > selective antialiasing as provided by the match statements. Any ideas?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> > 




Reply to: