Re: [U4X-Developer] libfbx -- fonts

[Mike B. <nit...@sl...>]

Paul Mundt wrote:
> 
> It has come to my attention that the current font setup under
> libfbx just plain sucks. In fact, sucking would be a good thing
> in comparison. We need to do a few of the following before it
> will be even remotely useful:
> 
>         - Include a lame default font in a header
>                 + This can be small
>                 + It gives us a fallback for systems
>                   not equipped with our list of supported
>                   fonts.
>         - Provide support for other types of fonts
>                 + We can dynamically load a wide variety
>                   of different fonts.
> 
> The only problem with supporting multiple types of fonts, is
> the lame overhead (and code size) that we add into libfbx just
> for supporting them.
> 
> Right now, libfbx-font.c is roughly 13kB. Reallistically, we
> don't want to exceed 25kB on all of our font support in
> total (not including the font in a header, of course). So..
> I'm open to suggestions that people have on what we should look
> at supporting.
> 
> Any other points anyone want to make on this issue?

Bitmapped fonts would be nice.  Look at allegro for examples.





-- 
Michael Bourgeous
E-mail: nit...@sl..., nit...@u4...
Reply-to: nit...@so...

"Too many people are thinking of security instead of
 opportunity.  They seem more afraid of life than
 death."

 		-- James F. Byrnes