Re: [gnus git] branch master updated: =1= * shr.el: Revert change that made headings use different-sized faces. The Emacs display engine isn't advanced enough that, for instance, tables can comfortably use differntly-sized faces.

Re: [gnus git] branch master updated: =1= * shr.el: Revert change that made headings use different-sized faces. The Emacs display engine isn't advanced enough that, for instance, tables can comfortably use differntly-sized faces.

[Julien Danjou]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 720 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 26 2011, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:

>     * shr.el: Revert change that made headings use different-sized faces.
>     The Emacs display engine isn't advanced enough that, for instance,
>     tables can comfortably use differntly-sized faces.

Well, could you only remove the :height part at least?

Currently, I read some posts with a lot of h[3-6] headings, and I am not
able to distinguish them (my font does not have italic, so h3 is like
h[4-6]), which is totally uncomfortable.

OTOH only spams and useless mails have table, so I do not care that much
about them being badly displayed, so I'd prefer to keep my height
setting. :)

-- 
Julien Danjou
❱ http://julien.danjou.info

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Italics in Emacs (was: [gnus git] branch master updated: =1= * shr.el: Revert change that made headings use different-sized faces. The Emacs display engine isn't advanced enough that, for instance, tables can comfortably use differntly-sized faces.)

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

> Well, could you only remove the :height part at least?

I could, but then I didn't really see much sense in having these (and
only these) be configurable.

The Emacs display engine is way too weak to deal with fonts of differing
sizes in general.  If you increase the size of h1, for instance, it
won't get filled properly, in addition to the fore-mentioned table
problems.

So I'm not sure having them being customisable is a good thing, because
users will set them and then they will complain about how ugly some
things look.

> Currently, I read some posts with a lot of h[3-6] headings, and I am not
> able to distinguish them (my font does not have italic, so h3 is like
> h[4-6]), which is totally uncomfortable.

Couldn't you install a font with italics?  :-)

By the way, I just noticed that the font I'm using on this machine
("Inconsolata:pixelsize=27") doesn't seem to have italics, either..
Anybody know how to fix that?  I think the font itself should have
italics, but Emacs doesn't display them...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Julien Danjou]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1455 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 27 2011, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> I could, but then I didn't really see much sense in having these (and
> only these) be configurable.

Probably the rest should be configurable too, but I at least needed this
ones while reading a long rss2mail mail recently.

> The Emacs display engine is way too weak to deal with fonts of differing
> sizes in general.  If you increase the size of h1, for instance, it
> won't get filled properly, in addition to the fore-mentioned table
> problems.
>
> So I'm not sure having them being customisable is a good thing, because
> users will set them and then they will complain about how ugly some
> things look.

I think you are over-thinking here.

>> Currently, I read some posts with a lot of h[3-6] headings, and I am not
>> able to distinguish them (my font does not have italic, so h3 is like
>> h[4-6]), which is totally uncomfortable.
>
> Couldn't you install a font with italics?  :-)
>
> By the way, I just noticed that the font I'm using on this machine
> ("Inconsolata:pixelsize=27") doesn't seem to have italics, either..
> Anybody know how to fix that?  I think the font itself should have
> italics, but Emacs doesn't display them...

Guess what, I'm using Inconsolata too. It's the best font I found to use
for Emacs and terminals. This fonts does not have italics support,
there's nothing to fix here.

-- 
Julien Danjou
❱ http://julien.danjou.info

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

>> So I'm not sure having them being customisable is a good thing, because
>> users will set them and then they will complain about how ugly some
>> things look.
>
> I think you are over-thinking here.

That's just my experience.  Nerds expect perfection, or nothing at all!
:-)  (They're just as happy with nothing at all.  I mean, just look at
how many nerds are using the Gmail web interface these days...)

> Guess what, I'm using Inconsolata too. It's the best font I found to use
> for Emacs and terminals. This fonts does not have italics support,
> there's nothing to fix here.

Oh, darn.  I really like Inconsolata.  It's, by far, the most pleasant
font I've used in Emacs...

Can't Emacs auto-slant things to make semi-italics?  Googling shows
people saying stuff like "slant=1", but I can't get that to work...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Julien Danjou]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 426 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 28 2011, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> Oh, darn.  I really like Inconsolata.  It's, by far, the most pleasant
> font I've used in Emacs...
>
> Can't Emacs auto-slant things to make semi-italics?  Googling shows
> people saying stuff like "slant=1", but I can't get that to work...

Nowadays, font rendering is XFT job. But I doubt it makes magic things.

-- 
Julien Danjou
❱ http://julien.danjou.info

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:47:59 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 
LI> Oh, darn.  I really like Inconsolata.  It's, by far, the most pleasant
LI> font I've used in Emacs...

I like Inconsolata a lot, but Terminus fits me better.  Terminus also
doesn't have italics, but has an oblique version at least.  The major
issues for me are always 0 vs. O (both put a slash through 0 so it looks
different) and l vs. 1 (they look very similar in both, which annoys
me).  Terminus also has better Unicode coverage IIRC, which matters to
me.  See http://www.lowing.org/fonts/ if you want to see other choices.

LI> Can't Emacs auto-slant things to make semi-italics?  Googling shows
LI> people saying stuff like "slant=1", but I can't get that to work...

No, you can't auto-slant a font easily.  But when you do, it's
apparently called "oblique" (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_type and
http://www.marksimonson.com/article/128/fake-vs-true-italics).

There's a horde of typography nerds headed for your house right now with
torches and pitchforks, demanding a human sacrifice for daring to ask
that question.

Ted

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Eric S Fraga]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:47:59 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 
> LI> Oh, darn.  I really like Inconsolata.  It's, by far, the most pleasant
> LI> font I've used in Emacs...
>
> I like Inconsolata a lot, but Terminus fits me better.  Terminus also
> doesn't have italics, but has an oblique version at least.  The major
> issues for me are always 0 vs. O (both put a slash through 0 so it looks
> different) and l vs. 1 (they look very similar in both, which annoys
> me).  Terminus also has better Unicode coverage IIRC, which matters to
> me.  See http://www.lowing.org/fonts/ if you want to see other
> choices.

I use "Liberation Mono" which is not quite as nice as Inconsolata *but*
does have a very good distinction between 0/O and l/1/i, and also
supports italics.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D) in Emacs 24.0.50.1 + No Gnus v0.11

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:

> I use "Liberation Mono" which is not quite as nice as Inconsolata *but*
> does have a very good distinction between 0/O and l/1/i, and also
> supports italics.

Hm...  this Ubuntu doesn't seem to have Liberation Mono, but I'm getting
a new laptop on Monday, UPS willing, so I'll try it out then.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Eric S Fraga]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> I use "Liberation Mono" which is not quite as nice as Inconsolata *but*
>> does have a very good distinction between 0/O and l/1/i, and also
>> supports italics.
>
> Hm...  this Ubuntu doesn't seem to have Liberation Mono, but I'm getting
> a new laptop on Monday, UPS willing, so I'll try it out then.

On Debian, ttf-liberation is available in the testing distribution/repository.
I have no idea whether ubuntu has it or not.

Enjoy your new laptop!

-- 
: Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D) in Emacs 24.0.50.1 + No Gnus v0.11

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:

> On Debian, ttf-liberation is available in the testing
> distribution/repository.  I have no idea whether ubuntu has it or not.

So it is.  Yeah, Liberation Mono seems quite nice.  Very readable.  I
think Inconsolata is a prettier, but getting italics back is a plus.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

> I like Inconsolata a lot, but Terminus fits me better.

I tried Terminus now, and it was too "thin" on this screen, at least.
To get it to be comfortably readable I had to jack it up to pixelsize
35, which left only 18 lines vertically...

> No, you can't auto-slant a font easily.  But when you do, it's
> apparently called "oblique" (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_type and
> http://www.marksimonson.com/article/128/fake-vs-true-italics).

Well, that's why I said "auto-slant" and not "auto-italicalizise".  :-)
(That should be a word.)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:04:17 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

>> I like Inconsolata a lot, but Terminus fits me better.
LI> I tried Terminus now, and it was too "thin" on this screen, at least.
LI> To get it to be comfortably readable I had to jack it up to pixelsize
LI> 35, which left only 18 lines vertically...

You must be blinder than me, which is an achievement in itself.  I use
-xos4-terminus-medium-r-normal--28-280-72-72-c-140-iso10646-1 but I've
dabbled with the bold version too, so maybe that will look better to
you, e.g. -xos4-terminus-bold-r-normal--20-200-72-72-c-100-iso10646-1

Ted

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> You must be blinder than me, which is an achievement in itself.  I use
> -xos4-terminus-medium-r-normal--28-280-72-72-c-140-iso10646-1 but I've
> dabbled with the bold version too, so maybe that will look better to
> you, e.g. -xos4-terminus-bold-r-normal--20-200-72-72-c-100-iso10646-1

Bold was better.  But then I wouldn't have bold.  :-)

The pixels on this screen are very small, and I guess the, er, font
hinting (or something) for Terminus hasn't really been optimised for
itsy bitsy pixels.  y.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:56:06 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> You must be blinder than me, which is an achievement in itself.  I use
>> -xos4-terminus-medium-r-normal--28-280-72-72-c-140-iso10646-1 but I've
>> dabbled with the bold version too, so maybe that will look better to
>> you, e.g. -xos4-terminus-bold-r-normal--20-200-72-72-c-100-iso10646-1

LI> Bold was better.  But then I wouldn't have bold.  :-)

Yeah.  I went through this too :)

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/91968

LI> The pixels on this screen are very small, and I guess the, er, font
LI> hinting (or something) for Terminus hasn't really been optimised for
LI> itsy bitsy pixels.  y.

That's a science in itself.  I hate tiny screens.

Ted

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>:

> That's a science in itself.  I hate tiny screens.

Tiny screenses!  We hatesss them, yes we doessss!

Re: Italics in Emacs

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "LI" == Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

LI> Can't Emacs auto-slant things to make semi-italics?  Googling shows
LI> people saying stuff like "slant=1", but I can't get that to work...

Fontconfig patterns have support for that.  For rxvt-unicode, which
uses separate X resources for font, boldFont, italicFont et cetera
I use this as one of my fallbacks:

           *font: xft:CODE2002:pixelsize=14
       *boldFont: xft:CODE2002:pixelsize=14:embolden=true
     *italicFont: xft:CODE2002:pixelsize=14:matrix=1 0.2 0 1
 *boldItalicFont: xft:CODE2002:pixelsize=14:embolden=true:matrix=1 0.2 0 1

Fontconfig's /etc/fonts/conf.avail/90-synthetic.conf is supposed to
enable that matrix if an oblique font is requested but only roman is
found, and also to enable embolden when the request weight is more
than medium but the returned font is <= medium.

It works for simple libxft apps such as xfd(1):

:; xfd -fa Inconsolata:slant=Oblique
:; xfd -fa Inconsolata:weight=Bold
:; xfd -fa Inconsolata:weight=Bold:slant=Oblique

provided that you have 90-synthetic.conf linked into /etc/fonts/conf.d
(and thus enabled).

A test shows that the embolden part of that does work in Emacs, but that
the obliquing does not.

It should be fixable, though.  I'd suggest M-x report-emacs-bug.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: Italics in Emacs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

> It works for simple libxft apps such as xfd(1):
>
> :; xfd -fa Inconsolata:slant=Oblique
> :; xfd -fa Inconsolata:weight=Bold
> :; xfd -fa Inconsolata:weight=Bold:slant=Oblique
>
> provided that you have 90-synthetic.conf linked into /etc/fonts/conf.d
> (and thus enabled).
>
> A test shows that the embolden part of that does work in Emacs, but that
> the obliquing does not.

Hm.  emacs -fn "Inconsolata:weight=Bold" doesn't seem to embolden the
font for me.  But, on the other hand, Inconsolata already has bold in
the font, I think?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen