From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: macos.texi updated Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:44:19 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8C0A68AE-EF12-4D6C-9879-D0FF3B04DE1B@mac.com> <87r7bhw2o8.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <991DC775-381E-4B96-BBC6-B3701CCD6EAD@cogsci.ucsd.edu> <3158D814-131C-469F-9DCF-3E678AC27957@cogsci.ucsd.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1129042295 4478 80.91.229.2 (11 Oct 2005 14:51:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 11 16:51:26 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EPLNr-0004rE-Ko for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:45:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EPLNr-0003Hc-HA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:45:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EPLN6-0002uW-KP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:44:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EPLN5-0002uB-UD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:44:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EPLN5-0002u2-Qc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:44:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EPLN5-0001Ze-Kw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:44:51 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1EPLMZ-00010C-5O; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:44:19 -0400 Original-To: Adrian Robert In-reply-to: <3158D814-131C-469F-9DCF-3E678AC27957@cogsci.ucsd.edu> (message from Adrian Robert on Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:53:40 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:43874 Archived-At: (I guess I was trying to say, "drop XLFD, and if some functionality is lost, update the lisp syntax to fix it".) We don't need to change Emacs for that. You should be able, already, to do whatever you like in Emacs without using XLFD syntax. What is there that cannot be done except with XLFD syntax? I think perhaps some command line option uses it. We could replace that option with one that uses a different syntax, but what syntax should it be? .default { font-family: courier; font-size: 13pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; } I don't think that is useful in an Emacs context. It is no easier to type, no more concise, than a list of face attributes in Lisp syntax. Where would we possibly want to use it? Not for the argument of a command-line option, for sure. > That is not a user interface proposal. That is a proposal for a > simplification of internals of Emacs. Maybe that would be a > simplification, maybe not. In either case, I would rather we NOT > change this now. > > But it has nothing to do with the idea of presenting a different > _syntax_ for specifying a font, so I think it is just a distraction > from the issue we were talking about. It is a separate issue (and I could/should have started a new thread I suppose), but it is related insofar as the exposure to the user of XLFD and the deep embedding of XLFD in the platform-independent face code are tied to one another. If someone wants to rewrite more of the internals of Emacs to get rid of the internal use of XLFD syntax, that is fine with me. Now is not the time to do it, of course.