World: r3wp

I appreciate the effort too ... but when i say this part needs a 
real work that's not to be rude etc... that's true !! damn how can 
i provide a simple functionnality like Zoom + / - for text if bellow 
font-size 14 bold the font rendering is ugly ?

Henrik ... when will it be properly supported ?

when it gets important enough to fix. right now the priority is to 
get things working in the first place. we have an app to build and 
sell.

being properly supported means working that part serriously ... so 
when will that day come ?

I don't know, shadwolf.

When it's done.

yeah so one day eventualy that's not how things should be done but 
that explain many things...

Actually, that is the way things should be done. 1. Make things work. 
2. Make the working things pretty.

shadwolf: if font rendering quality(or whatever else)  is so critical 
for you I think with R3 you have couple of options now:


1) wait until you get it for free (some day) while bitching at AltME 
about it
2) download the HostKit and improve the code yourself

3) pay(or overpersuade or whatever) someone else to improve the HostKit 
for your needs


So it looks you have at least 2 more ways(besides the 1. point) how 
to solve it comparing to R2 situation. Isn't that great?

shadwolf: Take option 2 and send us the code, we will integrate is 
ASAP.

If AGG (or R2) was relying on the OS font rendering, the behavior 
shadwolf decribed could be caused by Cleartype. If Cleartype is turned 
on, but the REBOL renderer isn't rendering with compatible antialiasing, 
fonts would look bad.

They would look even worse if the fonts were being rendered with 
antialiasing, but not the same antialiasing that Cleartype expects. 
Perhaps some rendering options aren't being used?

people often mistake rasterizing and outline generating process. 
  there can be bugs in both steps which affect output.

there can also be some side-effects between the outline generator 
and expected rasterizing process.

MS for example, dosesn't properly typeset its font.  The historical 
reason being that their fonts are very sharp and readle on low dpi 
monitors.


If that is a problem of the outline generation, the rasterizing or 
both is up for grabs but, its possible that we can get better results 
if we "fix" one or both of the problems.

This is not directly AGG's fault, since it might simply expecting 
different outlines for its rasterizer, or its not rasterizing the 
exact same way for which the outlines are expected to be used.

I am  not criticizing the work from the R3 team, far from it, but 
trying to provide a little bit more depth on the issue.

right now, AFAICT, the team is using the known and working solution.


when the actual artifact source is totally understood, I am sure 
steps can be done to improve the final output.

Just discovered: R3 doesn't use the same method for doing its font 
rendering as R2, it uses AGG instead. So it doesn't have the bug, 
and can be further improved.

Finally got some usable fields again:

http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/230.png

Now for some deeper testing of the resizing system.

Fields were not useable before? :-)

the resizing system changes completely broke them. you couldn't see 
what was typed.

http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/231.png

:-)

Very nice!

Woohoo! Congratulations to the team.

That Tibetan script looks hard to read ...

The typographer had poor handwriting.

If you look at the sample here http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tibetan.htm
the script seems to start from just above the top line and drops 
to the bottom with some accents above.

This is a screen shot from the Moscow tibetan OCR project http://www.buddism.ru///ocrlib/OCRLib21_07_2010.png

Again the text looks very different to that in Henrik's image

I guess we need to see what it is supposed to look like :)

And I thought you were being funny. Different baseline logic? I can't 
say.

It just looked different to what I've seen before posted to the OCR 
mailing list I subscribe to.

Doesn't mean it's wrong though!

Hmm, now that you say it. The vertical alignment of the Arabic also 
looks a bit off.

I don't' read Chinese either but there doesn't seem to be any spacing 
between the words

Jerry's console script looks a lot better too but it's traditional 
Chinese http://rebollovesjerry.blogspot.com/2008/03/rebol-30unicode.html

Chinese is a heiroglyph based system so there needs to be spacing 
between each word ...

BTW, the "Chinese" script looks more like Korean or Japanese ...but 
I'm no expert

we are coming to the opinion that what is said to be Chinese is actually 
Japanese...

You're right

That is actually Hiragana -  a Japanese syllabary

Good job we didn't let this error propagate ... otherwise we might 
get 1billion complaints!  :)

Actually, when I looked at the katakana showed here, i felt something 
weird (yeah, back in the time, I learned them)
I couldn't remember the 5th one.
then, I checked (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katakana)
Eh ! Right in the spot. (Wi) is not used anymore.

Cool - that is kind of milestone for View apps - finally being able 
to display more than one charset :-) As for spacing needed, that 
is not problem of View unicode support, or is it?

Kerning .. who's responsibility?

and tracking

Hey guys, don't be so picky ;) about the test text strings. I only 
cut'n'pasted random chars from some of these pages http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/#links
that's all.

I personally don't plan to spend time on all the 'unicode normalization' 
and other tricky stuff and details. It seems there is enough linguistic 
experts even for tibetan script! So I'll kindly left that part as 
an exercise to the comunity :-P

OK, and what can be done to get more quality to the font display?

BTW, the "Chinese" example is taken from this http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/cjk_compatibility.html
which should be chinese/japanese/korean. I'm really not expert in 
this(nor I would like to be) so I just hope I haven't created any 
offending word from the random chars in some of the language :)

so, it's all a mixture :)