On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:22:22AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2002 18:26:26 +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:24:14AM -0600, FVWM CVS wrote:
> > >
> > > Log message:
> > > * New {Title,Button}Style style StretchedPixmap
> >
> > I've added this because I think this useful and because it was a one
> > line patch after the MultiPixmap merge. But in fact I think that
> > something like "FitStretchedPixmap" is more useful (an other "one
> > line patch"): stretch the pixmap only if it is to big for the
> > destination. Does someone has a better name than "FitStretchedPixmap"?
>
> I hope I understand this correctly. I am sure there is a term in the
> image processing field for this. If not, maybe:
>
> SprainedImage
>
> Yes, I want to start to refer to XBM/XPM/PNG files as "Image" in user
> configs as more intuitive. If you want I may rename all new names.
>
I've no real opinion but no objection. But the "Pixmap" syntax should be
supported.
> Actually I think that the current TitleStyle Pixmap should behave this
> way, so no new option is needed. It seems pretty useless currently and
> we may just change it to be more useful when sprained.
>
I am agree. Any objection? There are 2 pbs: (i) backwarde compatibility
and (ii) ressource usage (e.g., when you resize a window at small size
each buttons will be resized).
> If you are at it, can you please fix the problem with Pixmap/TiledPixmap
> in 2.5.x. An image is drawn at +2+2 if title is raised/sunken. I think
> that the correct way is to handle it as in 2.4.x. I.e. it should always
> start at +0+0 and the following commands should only add/remove relief
> over the static image rather than shifting it.
>
> TitleStyle Active -- raised
> TitleStyle Active -- flat
>
One can see this as a new functionality: it is useless to draw the
pixmap under the relief. Say you have a 22x22 image button set with
Pixmap on a 22x22 raised title bar button, then it seems clear to me
that we should resize the image button to 18x18 and apply it at +2+2.
Maybe for TiledPixmap we should always start at +0+0, I do not
know. But I do not see pbs for Pixmap.
> > About names. I think that we should have a new Style which rotates
> > (always CW) the TitleStyle decorations. What about
> >
> > RotateVerticalTitleDecor / !RotateVerticalTitleDecor
>
> I would like if it is _always_ rotated by -90/+90/+180 depending on the
> rotation of the title text. So this +90/0 flag would be redundant for me.
> I am pretty convinced we don't need unrotated vertical title decorations.
>
> LeftTitleRotatedCW - rotate both text and decorations by +90
> !LeftTitleRotatedCW - rotate both text and decorations by -90
>
> The button order is not affected by this, only text/image rotation.
> We should remove LeftTitleRotatedCCW, since we have !LeftTitleRotatedCW.
>
Yes, but some decoration is symetric (a solid color, a centered gradient,
some TiledPixmap decoration, RootTransparent) and the rotation of the
decoration will use some resource. I see RotateVerticalTitleDecor as
an attribute of the decoration. Yes, the rotation should follow the
text rotation (but the individual buttons should not be rotated and
the buttons set should be rotated CW).
Olivier
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
