Subject: [bug#57963] [PATCH 0/1] Support user's fontconfig.

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2022 08:25:25 +0200

Am Sonntag, dem 25.09.2022 um 07:58 +0900 schrieb Taiju HIGASHI:
> Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > Anyway, it does look like your v2 is the way to go, with the
> > obvious caveat that using it is tricky: one needs to know about
> > fontconfig’s config file format and about sxml.
> > 
> > Maybe we can go with v2 for now (it provides a useful “escape
> > hatch”) but prepare for more conventional configuration bindings?
> 
> By conventional configuration binding, do you mean adding something
> like home-fontconfig-configuration to provide a dedicated  fontconfig
> configuration?
I think Ludo means that we should provide the most useful options (like
the fontconfig dirs) as dedicated record fields, while leaving an
"extra-config" escape hatch, that can be used with SXML or a raw string
for stuff that's too complicated (my personal preference would still be
SXML over the raw string, but YMMV).

> I have been reading the DTD and think it might be a bit of a
> challenge.
> https://github.com/freedesktop/fontconfig/blob/e291fda7d42e5d64379555097a066d9c2c4efce3/fonts.dtd
> 
> However, I did notice one thing, and that is that there is an include
> element.  I thought that if we had a configuration where the include
> element could be added, we could handle most of the use cases.
> What do you think of this idea?
I'd prefer extra-config over include – extra-config doesn't need to go
through file-like objects and an additional layer of G-Expression
quoting.

Cheers