[Fontconfig] Can we use base 16, and not 85, for ASCII charset representations?

Akira TAGOH akira at tagoh.org
Tue Sep 24 02:15:14 PDT 2013

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 13-09-21 08:26 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> I don't think saving three characters (37.5%) is worth the hassle of
>> learning a fontconfig-specific set of digits for base 85.
> Agreed.  Back when this code was written fontconfig was storing font caches
> in ASCII, so that representation was invented to store as much as possible.
>  These days, it's irrelevant, so I agree that we should change it to
> something human-readable.

I agree with that too. that said displaying everything that way with
FcCharSetPrint() may be too much and a bit annoying.
There may be two cases one wants to decode it. 1) to see what glyphs
are missing to get the certain language supported. 2) to see what
fonts contains the certain glyphs. we have fc-validate for 1) but no
handy solution so far for 2)

>                            Also, make it easy to ask for fonts having a
> specific character by making it easy to parse a simple set, something like
> this for example:
> $ fc-match :charset={06cc,064a}

So adding this feature looks nice to me. but doing that with "charset"
may gets confused. it is trivial thing though.


More information about the Fontconfig mailing list