From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Adrian Robert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: macos.texi updated Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:53:40 -0400 Message-ID: <3158D814-131C-469F-9DCF-3E678AC27957@cogsci.ucsd.edu> References: <8C0A68AE-EF12-4D6C-9879-D0FF3B04DE1B@mac.com> <87r7bhw2o8.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <991DC775-381E-4B96-BBC6-B3701CCD6EAD@cogsci.ucsd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1128974200 4052 80.91.229.2 (10 Oct 2005 19:56:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:56:40 +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 Mon Oct 10 21:56:39 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EP3is-0005WS-Sy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:54:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EP3is-0001pi-CO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:54:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EP3ii-0001pE-Oe for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:54:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EP3ig-0001os-So for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:54:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EP3ig-0001op-M3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:53:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.251.0.25] (helo=smtp-in2.med.cornell.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1EP3iV-0005Bi-Jr; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:53:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mpx2.med.cornell.edu (pc113142-10.med.cornell.edu [140.251.11.119]) by smtp-in2.med.cornell.edu (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id j9AJrfQK160474; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:53:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.251.33.115] by mpx2.med.cornell.edu (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.11 (built Jan 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0IO500764TXH4X30@mpx2.med.cornell.edu>; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:53:41 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: Original-To: rms@gnu.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0, Antispam-Data: 2005.10.10.24 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:43823 Archived-At: On Oct 9, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > You're right.. But the population of "power users" in this > case for > whatever reason seems fairly large (just subjective > impression), and > the requirement to learn XLFD (to compose a fontset, or whatever > else) and partake of the pleasures of asterisk-counting seems > onerous. > > Is there a suitable font specification syntax in some other app that > we could imitate? I don't think it is worth while for us to develop a > new one, and if it were unique to Emacs, it probably would not be very > useful. I agree that introducing yet-another-syntax just to eliminate XLFD is debatable. But I'm not sure whether a second syntax beyond the lisp syntax used for font specification within a face that Yamamoto-san posted earlier on this thread is needed at all. (I guess I was trying to say, "drop XLFD, and if some functionality is lost, update the lisp syntax to fix it".) But if a second syntax IS needed, CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) might be one source of an alternative that is likely to be both easier to work with and more familiar to most users than XLFD. It's also structurally more similar to the existing lisp syntax than XLFD, because it uses a similar attribute+value scheme. Compare: (set-face-attribute 'default nil :family "courier" :height 130 :weight 'bold :slant 'italic) .default { font-family: courier; font-size: 13pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; } Also, because the CSS format also supports attributes like foreground/ background color and borders, it could conceivably work for face specification beyond just the font. > XLFD should be removed from non-window-system-specific code and > replaced with a simple struct containing the same information. > > 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. In any case, I intended all of this discussion to apply to emacs 23, and to avoid unneeded distraction I'm happy to put it aside for now until 22 is out the door.