There are small lines appearing sometimes in front of words. In the pictures they are to the right of +syntax/ and swo and delmenu.vim.
Is this a bug or those lines mean something?
Do this happened to you before?
Would they get worse in the future?
PS: I'm using Microsoft Windows XP SP2 AMD
alt text http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7673/picpd.jpg
EDIT: I change the font to Consolas and they disappeared. Is there a way to solve the problem while still using my favorite font, Monaco (and not turning off Cleartype)?
This is caused by cleartype font smoothing.
If you use a fixed font for gvim the problem goes away (.fon files). ttf files contain font smoothing information which gets messed up in gvim.
fixedsys renders well. There are a bunch of other ones that also work well.
An alternative is to turn off font smoothing altogher using the display properties, but that will have undesirable effects on all other applications.
This does indeed look like a rendering bug. You should report it to the gvim team. But you should also never use jpegs for screen shots - the compression doesn't work nearly as well as pngs, and could potentially introduce distortion in shots exactly like this one.
Just a guess, but it may be related to the font you are using. Maybe you could try to change it to see if these lines still appear, or disappear, or move to other lines ...
Related
I am trying to insert Unicode characters into a TextView. In particular, I want to include a check mark and an "X". I found two Unicode characters to do this, namely \u2714 and \u2716. These show up as shown below. These are Ok I guess but I'm not crazy about the colors. Ideally, the check mark would be green and the cross red. Or at least both the same color. TextView.setTextColor doesn't help.
My guess is that these colors are baked into the font (typeface). I guess I could download a boatload of TrueType fonts and try them one-by-one, but that seems like cruel and unusual punishment.
Does anybody know a way to change the colors? (or otherwise do what I want)
I suppose I could re-architect the app to use images but that would entail unacceptably major re-structuring.
Well, no one responded, so I'm posting this answer to capture what I think I learned. From my reading, it appears that color in TrueType fonts is a non-standard, vendor-specific extension to the TrueType specification, which was added to accommodate emoticons. So I guess I'm out of luck. Fortunately, It works fine on my Samsung if I can tolerate the colors.
I recently discovered this historical document, which purports to act as a test of UTF-8 encoding for whatever application displays it.
When I paste it into my terminal (iterm2), it loads the box drawings at the end beautifully (except for a couple at bottom right):
But in both Chrome and Firefox, they are crooked and clearly wrong:
It seems the difference has to do with the width of the rendered character: for example "╲" displays in my terminal as wide as other characters such as "a", but in the browser it displays wider.
Is this a deliberate choice, and if so what inspired it? If not, where is the right place to file a bug?
EDIT
Thanks to Tom Blodget's answer, I am now aware that fonts are an important consideration. I'll clarify:
In my screenshots above, Firefox and Chrome are using Courier as the monospace font, while the terminal is using Monaco. In both contexts, the font seems to apply as much to the box-drawing characters as to the ASCII ones: when I change the font, the appearance of the drawings changes as well as that of the surrounding text.
When I switch the terminal to either Courier or Courier New, it shows the box drawings equally well -- in some ways better!
When I switch either browser to Monaco, it still shows the box drawings wrong, again from characters apparently displaying at a wider-than-monospace width.
So it still seems like the browsers are doing something wrong.
When I go to dev tools, I see the entire test is one pre element. Several fonts are being used on my system. Everything looks okay except the hatch pattern on the right.
If I hack out all of the other text, the only font used is Consolas and it looks okay. I think it's down to which fonts you have, how the browser prioritizes them, especially when it has to use more than one, and (conjecture) two monospaced fonts need not have the same width.
A terminal is likely to be less adept at using multiple fonts, instead, using one fixed one or selecting one "best" match for the required characters.
[Google Chrome 72.0.3626.96 on Windows 10.]
This is likely the same as https://bugs.debian.org/981577
If you have any old fonts installed that don't cover the unicode BOX DRAWING range, it's likely that your browser is stitching them together. While each font itself might be monospace (each glyph is the same width within the font), the combination of fonts might not be monospace (because glyph width differs between fonts), which is why the alignment fails.
I found on my system that uninstalling the legacy Bitstream Vera font resolved the issue. (Bitstream Vera has been superseded by DejaVu Sans)
Hi I'm using Inconsolata for powerline font in linux (link 1). Now I want to had some extra symbols. I've successfully added the awesome font symbols from the Inconsolata patched fonts in link 2 to my own copy of Inconsolata for powerline font (i.e. I can successfully copy glyphs to my font and they appear on the terminal).
However when I try to add icons from other fonts, namely the battery icons from Typicons (see link 3) they simply do not appear in the terminal. I've scaled and changed multiple properties but it's always the same.
I'm doing fc-cache -fv and I've checked that if I manually create a glyph it appears after an fc-cache. I'm completely lost here, I'm sure it must be something simple but I've already lost a lot of hours with this and the glyphs never appear in the terminal no matter what I do :-(
Try adding few glyphs from each to a new font file project. If it is a symbol-only font and you don't care/need to follow Unicode assignments, use codepoints for alphabetical characters and numbers.
Generate your file and check for errors. Fix any issues reported by FontForge.
I've discovered the problem. In two words lbearing and rbearing. They must be the same as the other glyphs. The size is also important. Even with a similar lbearing and rbearing if the size of the glyph is too big it will not appear.
I have previously used Mapquest Open Arial tiles without any trouble. However, after the last server change I get tiles with weird colors. Their example tile still looks fine:
http://otile1.mqcdn.com/tiles/1.0.0/sat/15/5240/12661.jpg
But, the ones I'm trying to download look like this:
http://otile1.mqcdn.com/tiles/1.0.0/sat/13/1927/3385.jpg
The most striking problem is that the vegetation is red.
Does anyone know what's causing this or perhaps how I can correct the colors (I have tried playing around with them a bit in gimp but I couldn't find a solution)?
Disclaimer: I work at MapQuest. Unfortunately there was bad data in the last round of open aerial imagery updates that caused some areas (we've noticed Texas) to be seeded with discoloration from zoom level 12 and up. We've got this on our backlog, but I don't have an estimate as to when this issue will be resolved. Thanks for your interest in our Open Tiles!
How do I prevent colors form bleeding into one another when using the vb .net Graphics.Drawstring method. This Occurs with colors that really shouldnt be used together eg green/orange and black and red.
Thanks
Sounds like you have antialiasing enabled. Have you tried to disable that?
I fixed this by generating png's instead of jpegs the quality ended up being a lot better