src/rxvtfont.C ascent/descent and g.xOff patch

[clutton]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 10:08 +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 01:24:39AM +0200, clutton <clutton at zoho.com> wrote:
> > I was trying to fix enormous font width for urxvt running on FreeBSD.
> > The fonts I have are «Monaco» and «PragmataPro».
> 
> Please look at previous discussions - the patch is incorrect. rxvt-unicode
> requires a charcell font (basically a font suitable for a use in a grid
> such as used interminals). Basically, your fonts have very wide glyphs,
> and urxvt has to accomodate them.
> 
> > + * bukind: don't use g.width as a width of a character!
> > + * instead use g.xOff, see e.g.: http://keithp.com/~keithp/render/Xft.tutorial
> 
> According to that very url, xOff is *wrong*, as it is the spacing to the
> next glyph. "width" is correct, as we need the glyph width (the spacing is
> constant in a terminal).
> 

Thank you for your answer.

I'm not saying that the patch is right.

As a new rxvt user, I may think that enormous width means something
wrong with rxvt rendering. Because other software displays that font
correctly. Furthermore, all software displays that font correctly.

As a developer, I don't like to fix somebody's fault. In that case, I
may say: I'm not going to write behaviour which fixes somebody's broken
fonts.

So, what is the official answer? Don't use bad fonts?

I'd read the FAQ before writing. I didn't find the answer.

«The solution is to upgrade your system or switch to a better one»
doesn't look like a right answer for my question.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.schmorp.de/pipermail/rxvt-unicode/attachments/20140121/4dcbe3a7/attachment.sig>