Re: Is there any documentation at all about gnome-print

[Martin Sevior <msevior mccubbin ph unimelb edu au>]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Valek Filippov wrote:

> Hej!
> 
> > I fixed all this in Abiword > 0.9.0. Now we're just waiting for
> > gnome-print to handle true-type fonts. However for Type 1 Fonts AbiWord
> Read about gnome-print patch for ttf support in gnome-print mail-list.
> 

I heard that this patch would not be accepted because it was all
going to be completely fixed for gnome 2.0.

> > shows gnome-print to it's full power. Do print-preview on >0.9.0 it's
> > beautiful and fast. We even worked out how print dingbat and symbol fonts.
> > (You gotta translate the 8 bit encoding to the equivalent unicode for the
> > glyphs.)
> Are you mean that now AW uses glyph-names instead of numbers?
> All was ready for it at the 0.7 times but wasn't used.
> 

We could but there seems no point. It would certainly be slower than doing
what we're currently doing.

Look at the symbol.e2u file distributed in our unxfonts directory. It maps
the 8 bit font-specific code to unicode. I imagine something like this
could be done for Cryllic and other font sets too.

One day I have to find time to see if GTK 2.0 fixes all this mess.

However in terms of the complete end-user package, we in Free Software are
seriously lacking high quality fonts. It doesn't matter how great the
rest of our software is, if we don't have a large variety of high quality
fonts people are going to complain.

It appears to be one of the biggest current complaints in making about
AbiWord VS Kword. Our fonts, being the free Type 1's look ugly. I believe
this is because KDE take full advantage of the truetype fonts stolen off
peoples Windows partitions. I don't know for sure. I haven't investigated.

Cheers

Martin