contributing new font package for xorg (fwd)

James Cloos cloos+pdx-xorg at
Thu Aug 11 00:58:17 PDT 2005

>>>>> "Qianqian" == Qianqian Fang <fangq at> writes:

Qianqian> We are really appreciated if any of font experts can
Qianqian> check out the font and give us suggestions on the format and
Qianqian> metrics.

I took a look at them.  The only consideration I see is whether to
follow the tradition of the other CJK bdf fonts in X and split the
full-width glyphs from the half-width glyphs, or to follow the ttf
style of keeping them in a single proportional font.

Fonts like the family: 9x18.bdf, 18.18ja.bdf and 18x18ko.bdf split
the fullwidth glyphs out so that the fonts can be char-cell rather
than proportional.  

The XLFDs for those three fonts are:

FONT -Misc-Fixed-Medium-R-Normal--18-120-100-100-C-90-ISO10646-1
FONT -Misc-Fixed-Medium-R-Normal-ja-18-120-100-100-C-180-ISO10646-1
FONT -Misc-Fixed-Medium-R-Normal-ko-18-120-100-100-C-180-ISO10646-1

whereas you have:

FONT -WenQuanYi-WenQuanYi Bitmap Song-medium-r-normal--16-160-75-75-P-80-iso10646-1

for the similar size.  If you split them you could have eg:

FONT -WenQuanYi-WenQuanYi Bitmap Song-medium-r-normal--16-160-75-75-C-80-iso10646-1
FONT -WenQuanYi-WenQuanYi Bitmap Song-medium-r-normal-zh-16-160-75-75-C-160-iso10646-1

and ensure the font's usability in charcell apps like terminal
emulators and many editors (such as current emacs¹).

OTOH, it may be the case that Xft apps prefer your current design.
Given the motivation mentioned on your website it may be best not
to make such a change....

¹ Although emacs' cjk support probably requires non-iso10646 fonts
  through the upcoming emacs-22; emacs-23, however, uses 10646² as
  its internal representation and should work well with your fonts.

James H. Cloos, Jr. <cloos at> <>

More information about the xorg mailing list