You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This bug report was migrated from our old Bugzilla tracker.
Reported in version: unspecified Reported for operating system, platform: All, All
Comments on the original bug report:
On 2006-01-19 05:10:45 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
Current SDL_ttf (http://www.libsdl.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/SDL_ttf2/) seems
to calculate bounding boxes based on the maximum and minimum values that
appear in the font, as opposed to the used glyphs only. This means that
fonts containing some of the Unicode Block Elements will generally cause
SDL_ttf to use very large line spacing, even if the Block Elements are
not actually being used in the application. http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2580.pdf
From Stepan Roh, project manager for the DejaVu font family:
In version 1.14 Box Elements were added
(created by David Lawrence Ramsey). Those glyphs have bigger descent than
other glyphs which cause the change of yMin value in TTF 'head' table from
-492 to -1034 (note that this value comes from Sans Mono and their Box
Drawing glyphs). This may explain your observations, however (I believe)
correct rasterizer should either compute bounding boxes of used glyphs
only (not of the whole font) or use typographic descents (either from
'hhea' table or from 'OS/2' table). I have DejaVuSans 1.14 installed in
KDE as a system font and it clearly uses one of those approaches.
As I look through SDL_ttf sources on a location you provided I see
(function TTF_OpenFontIndexRW):
I have tested this suggested change with DejaVuSans 2.1 and after
this tweak, SDL_ttf now renders this font correctly in our application
(Battle for Wesnoth, http://www.wesnoth.org/). Please consider this
change for SDL_ttf.
This bug report was migrated from our old Bugzilla tracker.
Reported in version: unspecified
Reported for operating system, platform: All, All
Comments on the original bug report:
On 2006-01-19 05:10:45 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
On 2006-01-27 11:23:16 +0000, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
On 2006-05-01 05:26:41 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: