GNU bug report logs - #59347
29.0.50; `:family` face setting ignored

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, "59347 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <59347 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: bug#59347: 29.0.50; `:family` face setting ignored
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 17:29:26 +0000

(Mille excuses - not following this thread.
Ignore if irrelevant.)

Does some of the "problem" figuring out what to
do here perhaps come from the (misguided?)
decision to name some faces (basic/common ones,
no less) after particular face/font attributes,
such as "bold"?  Is it a good idea to have such
faces?

Maybe that's considered unavoidable, as these
are so basic/common that their names can't
really be based on any particular _use_ of the
face?  We could have an `emphasis' face, but
face `italic' is apparently meant to really
express/~hard-code "italic" appearance instead.

Nevertheless, isn't this perhaps at the root of
the problem - trying to decide how to deal with
a face whose name shouts "bold" or "fixed pitch"?

We've only got a few such appearance-name faces.
We don't have a face called "ten-point", for
instance.  Do we really need/want to have _any_
such faces?  (Abstracting from an already-sailed
argument.)

If such faces were named neutrally (e.g. `foo')
would there still be a problem/discussion here?
____

As for grouping into families: is the intention
to hard-code such groups or let users/code do
the grouping?  Is Stefan's idea to give users
and code some control over this?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.