[Fontconfig] FreeType now includes Infinality subpixel support

Akira TAGOH
Thu, 21 Jun 2012 02:22:08 -0000

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Infinality <infinality at infinality.net>
wrote:
> As far as I know, there really isn''t bytecode that is specific to
Cleartype.
> ?Bytecode is bytecode. ?The Cleartype flag (or the phrase "designed
for
> Cleartype") generally means that the font doesn''t contain the
legacy hacks
> used in fonts like Arial, Courier New, etc., which are problematic when
> being displayed with antialiasing on a TT rasterizer that is following
> specs. ?The subpixel hinting functionality works around the issues with the
> legacy fonts, while allowing modern fonts to render as though they are
> "designed for Cleartype". ? Or am I not understanding what you
mean here?

Well, the question was how it looks when rendering the text with
mixing up "ClearType" fonts and legacy fonts, because it seems that
there is/was? the case in Windows that one is smooth and one is jaggy
when ClearType is turning on.
As you said the above, I guess it won''t happens?

> The choices you get in Windows (as far as I know) are to have Cleartype on
> or off. ?In fontconfig this would correspond to the below configurations.
?A
> link to a corresponding image is above each configuration. ?(Don''t
pay
> attention to the text in it, because it''s the same across all
images):

Thanks. that would be useful. it may be a good idea to add those
configuration as reference in fontconfig.

> If you look at the Times New Roman "2, 3", Arial ?"r, g, b,
e, O" (12px to
> 17px) and others, you can see artifacts ranging from vanishing stems to
> dents in the outline. ?This is because these particular fonts were never
> designed to render with both antialiasing and TT hinting. ?So, my argument
> is that this form of rendering is wrong, was never intended, and
shouldn''t
> be accommodated into fontconfig rules.

I agreed. the subpixel hinting looks good at this point.

> Sorry for the long explanation, but as you know, stuff related to fonts is
> always more complex than you''d link at first glance. ?;)

Thanks for kindly explanation. that''s really useful :)

--
Akira TAGOH