From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Continuing Font Problems: Some XFT fonts not using XFT engine? Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:50:54 +0900 Message-ID: References: <20090415201122.GA28776@metasyntax.net> <87tz4p5yk7.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <49E67E8A.20402@gnu.org> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1239850281 24549 80.91.229.12 (16 Apr 2009 02:51:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:51:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jason Rumney Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 16 04:52:41 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LuHiR-0004wi-6V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:52:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59080 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LuHh2-0004vX-LM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:51:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LuHgx-0004v4-C3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:51:07 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LuHgs-0004re-Nd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:51:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52739 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LuHgs-0004rb-IF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:51:02 -0400 Original-Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.206]:54819) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LuHgn-0005uK-M1; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:50:58 -0400 Original-Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.46]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3G2oscp024620; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:50:54 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.16] [10.29.19.16]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:50:54 +0900 Original-Received: from dhlpc061 ([10.114.114.58] [10.114.114.58]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:50:54 +0900 Original-Received: by dhlpc061 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 6D74052E274; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:50:54 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <49E67E8A.20402@gnu.org> (Jason Rumney's message of "Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:40:42 +0800") Original-Lines: 22 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) 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:110307 Archived-At: Jason Rumney writes: >> This isn't such a problem for most apps, which only understand one of >> the two types of fonts, but it may terribly confuse Emacs, which can >> handle both simultaneously. > > There should be an order imposed on font backends. So one backend should > always take precedence over the other, and duplicate font names should > not matter. It used to work that way, but it seems from reports of this > type that something has changed recently. There is an order, but, given that the backends are quite different, the (visible-to-emacs) details are probably often slightly different. It seems like there are certain situations where the font exported by the non-preferred backend somehow looks like a better match for some set of font attributes specified by emacs... -Miles -- Alliance, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.