> > Or, you can just prioritize the separate renderers. Do not waste > > your work. > > While the concept of having different renderers sounds nice in theory, > I think it is a hassle to implement, since it moves the burden of > properly supporting various SVG rendering libraries to FreeType. > > I still favour the model of having a *single* default renderer for > SVG, providing hooks that can be overridden at run-time for another > library.
Werner, Moazin, This is not user friendly and users will resist it. How many calls a user has to make to initialize the library: 1) FT_Init_FreeType 2) FT_Library_SetLcdFilter (how many people forget this already) 3) FT_Property_Set 4) FT_Set_SvgHooks (at least use FT_Property_Set instead) All I care is that the SVG rendering is properly abstracted as a renderer module that can be FT_Add/Remove_Module and customized by FT_Property_Set. Moazin made the right steps already by removing any special code form FT_Render_Glyph_Internal. Thank you, Alexei _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
