On Wednesday 05 April 2006 00:46, Phil Krylov wrote:
This is only true for RichEdit 2.0 - later versions have better table support, while our current implementation is approximately at 2.0 level.
Perhaps, but the problem of CHARRANGE being insufficient to describe the start and end of rendering for a table remains. On Wednesday 05 April 2006 00:16, Dan Kegel wrote:
Hi Troy, any chance you can also provide a conformance test, however trivial?
Not a meaningful one - too many things depend on environment (LOGPIXELSX/LOGPIXELSY, font availability, font rendering differences due to different font engines, versions of font engines, configuration of font engines).
I gather that some but not all apps will also require EM_DISPLAYBAND to make use of this, right? Just curious.)
Some will, maybe, but with this change some of those apps will be improved in because they will not get stuck in a loop. EM_DISPLAYBAND is somewhat anachronistic though and apps get no significant benefit from using it over rendering with EM_FORMATRANGE. In theory EM_DISPLAYBAND may improve efficiency of printing to some types of printers, in practice the difference is not worth worrying about. -- Troy Rollo - wine(a)troy.rollo.name