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

W. Trevor King wking at tremily.us
Tue Sep 24 09:22:41 PDT 2013

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:15:14PM +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > 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.

So you think the:

  <page>: <mask>

syntax is too verbose in hex?  I can't think of a good alternative off
the top of my head without dropping information, and I don't think we
want different output format for:

  $ fc-list <pattern> charset

compared to the element-less invocations.

> > 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.

Would you prefer a different value syntax or different keyword?


This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20130924/195a5f93/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Fontconfig mailing list