On 4/22/05, Carl Worth <<a href="mailto:cworth@cworth.org">cworth@cworth.org</a>> wrote:<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:23:03 +1200, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > I've got Cairo-based Mozilla into a barely usable state. Hey, that is fantastic news. Well done! Is cairo rendering everything in the screenshot, or just the main content pane? </blockquote><div> Everything. (Except for the window manager borders, of course.) </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> Also, this page doesn't really show it, but we are running into the problem of > antialiased fills causing artifacts where two shapes share a > non-pixel-aligned edge. I really want to add a mode to cairo_t that turns > antialiasing off. What are the chances that that would be accepted? We could add such a thing, (David Reveman even made a patch and sent it to the list once). But for this particular problem, I'd be much more inclined to implement (or accept a patch for) a full-scene antialiasing surface. The overall quality wouldn't be as good as standard cairo antialiasing (for scenes without the seam problems), but it would solve the seam problem in a way that would look a lot better than disabling antialiasing completely.</blockquote><div> If I understand correctly, that solution would be a combination of "disable coverage-based antialiasing" and "render to a larger surface, then scale down with pixel averaging". That sounds good, but on low-end machines we'll probably want the scale factor to be 1x1. Also, I think it really would be good to be able to decide on per-shape (or ideally per-edge) basis whether coverage-based antialiasing is on or not; there are some shapes (edges) where we know there won't be adjacent edges, or we don't care. Also, are you sure this should be a new surface type? It seems to me that we want this feature to be applicable to glitz and xlib and so on. I have another question, about image drawing. All our image drawing uses patterns because we support drawing a subrectangle of the image, and the easiest way to do that is to use the pattern matrix. Would it be faster (or otherwise desirable) to use show_image_surface when the subrectangle is the full image? </div></div> Rob -- ["Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." Philippians 2:12-13.]