On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 06:08:47PM -0800, Brian Stell wrote: > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > ... > > It is our belief that leaving font rendering on the server side > > will be more efficient than sending the bits over from the client > > side. > > Have the fonts handled at the server means having to pull the > metrics over the the client. Having the fonts handled at the > client means having to send the glyph data over to the server. > I looked at this and it did not seem dramatically different. > Maybe slight more bytes for the client side. To me this pales in > comparison to moving images which everyone is doing a lot these > days.
If one uses an encapsulated text API such as ST there is no need to pull glyph metrics over to the client. The idea is that each displayable chunk of text (a text layout) is managed by the server and the only thing the client should ever need to know is is the bounding box for the entire text layout. ST clients don't need to know glyph boundaries since they don't need to highlights or hit testing - the server will do it for them. > > We also think that having the text in the server may provide > > additional benefits, such as allowing accessibility solutions > > to access the text of clients who don't use an accessibility- > > enabled toolkit. > > I'm not familiar with this. Could you talk about this a bit more? If the server knows what is in the text box, it will be able to read it for the blind user. If all it knows is that there is a a bitmap that the application converted its text to, such a thing would be impossible. AG -- Alexander Gelfenbain, Sun Microsystems, Inc. +1 (408) 635-0612 _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
