Re: FontDlg sample text

[Rein Klazes]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:04 +0200, you wrote:
> - {'C','c','D','d',0}, /* Symbol */

With native win98, ME and win2k the example string for symbol I get is
spelled 'S','y','m','b','o','l'

BTW, I have a patch for this and other fontdlg enhancements as well. Do
you plan to submit any more patches soon?

Rein.

FontDlg sample text

[Shachar Shemesh]

Rein Klazes wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:04 +0200, you wrote:
> > - {'C','c','D','d',0}, /* Symbol */
>
> With native win98, ME and win2k the example string for symbol I get is
> spelled 'S','y','m','b','o','l'
>
> BTW, I have a patch for this and other fontdlg enhancements as well. Do
> you plan to submit any more patches soon?
>
> Rein.

Well aware of that. However, doing that would require me to introduce a 
significant change into the code, and I don't see the reward. It's not 
as if you can read the resulting string anyways.

Likewise, the Japanese sample text only has Aa (and not AaBb) of Romanji 
(latin characters). For similar reasons, I left AaBb in place (why 
remove it?).

Shachar

FontDlg sample text

[Alexandre Julliard]

Shachar Shemesh  writes:
> Likewise, the Japanese sample text only has Aa (and not AaBb) of
> Romanji (latin characters). For similar reasons, I left AaBb in place
> (why remove it?).

The question should be why do we go to the trouble of having parts of
the string handled in two different places, when we could simply store
the full string in the sample text array. It would make the code
simpler, more flexible, and more compatible. Is there a good reason
for doing it the way it is now?

FontDlg sample text

[Rein Klazes]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:45:55 -0800, you wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh  writes:
> > Likewise, the Japanese sample text only has Aa (and not AaBb) of
> > Romanji (latin characters). For similar reasons, I left AaBb in place
> > (why remove it?).
>
> The question should be why do we go to the trouble of having parts of
> the string handled in two different places, when we could simply store
> the full string in the sample text array. It would make the code
> simpler, more flexible, and more compatible. Is there a good reason
> for doing it the way it is now?

This is what my patch is doing, I will submit it when I have put a few
more sample strings in.

And may be Shachar thinks it is not important: symbol files are
sometimes scarcely populated, a diffferent sample string may look
completely different, for instance not at all.

Rein.

FontDlg sample text

[Shachar Shemesh]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh  writes:
> > Likewise, the Japanese sample text only has Aa (and not AaBb) of
> > Romanji (latin characters). For similar reasons, I left AaBb in place
> > (why remove it?).
>
> The question should be why do we go to the trouble of having parts of
> the string handled in two different places, when we could simply store
> the full string in the sample text array. It would make the code
> simpler, more flexible, and more compatible. Is there a good reason
> for doing it the way it is now?

The reason is the unicode version of the dialog. In Unicode, you may 
need to display several "character sets" simultaniously. When that 
happens, you don't want to repeat the AaBb string over and over.

As for the strings themselves - they are 100% language independant, as 
far as I can tell. After all, they don't spell a word in any language 
that I actually speak (Arabic may be an exception here, as may 
Japanese). Even when they, do, it's a word in that language.

I failed to understand how you wanted to make it into a resource.

Shachar