First of all, sorry about the long lines. I'm working on a fresh OS install with an entirely new (to me) email client. With luck, I should have it configured properly now. Also, there's no mention on "MList.html" on if we're supposed to reply to sender as well as the mailing list, or just reply to the list? On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 22:34:42 +0000 "corvid" <corvid@lavabit.com> wrote:
Jon wrote:
I guess the best way to show up on a development list is with patches,
Yes! People who arrive with "I want to help!" but without patches rarely ever show up again.
There's a big difference between wanting to help and helping. :-)
There was no mention on the site about the preferred diff format
It's mentioned in developer.html and cvs.html.
I blatantly missed it, twice. Unfortunately, I've run out of good excuses today, so you'll need to chalk up the mistake to not paying enough attention. I will admit that while reading cvs.html, I questioned, and to a degree, discounted, the instructions given since (to me) it makes little sense to maintain multiple copies of the source tree.
The first is to fix an over-sight in the following post/patch posted to this mailing list: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.dillo.devel/6248
The above patch does not take into consideration font size, so the result can be microscopic/unreadable fonts. I've added the code to scale the font in the same way as you scale other fonts in dillo.
I had considered it, but didn't know whether I should. I ended up leaving it alone, reasoning that at least it would be no worse than before. Why was it causing them to be microscopic?
It's a resolution issue. A 14 point font on *my* system is microscopic and the cause is running extremely high resolutions. If you run really high resolutions (i.e. greater than 1600x1000, 1600,1280), finding microscopic fonts on some applications is a partially self-inflicted wound, but the real cause is developers not realizing they have no control over display hardware, instaled fonts, or system configurations. --Web site developers are absolutely notorious for this mistake, but applications developers also make it. It was a pleasure to see dillo handles the web page font size problem by providing scaling of fonts. Of course, every application will need a "default" font and "default" font size, but both font and size must be configurable by the user or the program will be unusable on many systems. Dillo is no exception, uses a default font size of 14 points, and worse, it's hard coded in a number of places in the source. I'll look into this as time allows. There are also similar font size issues with the "X of Y images," "X KB" size, and the labels of tabs, since all of them use fonts *smaller* than 14 points. I'll try to look into them as well. Though some would claim that fashion is my only conscience, :-) improving the font handling in dillo will make sure the program is usable on a much wider number of system types and configurations. Also, font handling is actually a very important issue for the visually impaired due to their use of screen readers (magnifiers), and specialized hardware. With GTK, you can control many aspects of the toolkit such as font names/sizes on all applications through the system-wide or user-level .gtkrc files. If there is a user/system equivalent for controlling FLTK globally, I haven't found it yet. --If you know of something similar for FLTK, please drop-kick me in the direction of the proper documentation. :-) Kind Regards, Jon -- J.C. Roberts