GNU logs - #26959, boring messages

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 04:18:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B.149499462414318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 00:16:47 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi bug-gnu-emacs,

Could underline thickness be made configurable? It would be nice to be able to pick between regular and thick/bold underlines (the later would be obtained by doubling the usual underline thickness, I imagine).

Thanks,
Clément.

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#26959: Acknowledgement (Feature request: bold underlines)
Message-ID: <handler.26959.B.149499462414318.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 26959
X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs
Reply-To: 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 04:18:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
26959: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D26959
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 04:23:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149499492814802 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 21:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

> Could underline thickness be made configurable? It would be nice to be ab=
le
> to pick between regular and thick/bold underlines (the later would be
> obtained by doubling the usual underline thickness, I imagine).

See my reply to bug #26958.  Should we have two requests:

1. Wavy (and plain) underline to follow text scaling (#26958).
2. Be able to configure underline line-width (#26959).

Is #2 enough?  If we could customize the :line-width for :underline
(and :overline? and :strike-through?), would that be sufficient, or
is there also a need for such lines to be sensitive to text scaling?

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 04:40:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149499597216384 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 00:39:18 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="ORTgIIDS4lm2aoeuNKuR5IofTEmeC4d9t"
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--ORTgIIDS4lm2aoeuNKuR5IofTEmeC4d9t
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="64JIt0wT1exGc67buU8tI85pkTQ0Hph6V";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
In-Reply-To: <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>

--64JIt0wT1exGc67buU8tI85pkTQ0Hph6V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2017-05-17 00:21, Drew Adams wrote:
>> Could underline thickness be made configurable? It would be nice to be=
 able
>> to pick between regular and thick/bold underlines (the later would be
>> obtained by doubling the usual underline thickness, I imagine).
>=20
> See my reply to bug #26958.  Should we have two requests:

Thanks for your replies :)

> 1. Wavy (and plain) underline to follow text scaling (#26958).
> 2. Be able to configure underline line-width (#26959).

Yes, that's a great summary.

> Is #2 enough?  If we could customize the :line-width for :underline
> (and :overline? and :strike-through?), would that be sufficient, or
> is there also a need for such lines to be sensitive to text scaling?

I don't think so =E2=80=94 sensitivity to text scaling would be a useful,=
 distinct feature.  Otherwise Lisp code will have to inspect font sizes a=
nd adjust thickness based on it, which will cause inconsistencies.  Addit=
ionally, the amount of space between the text and the underline needs to =
be adjusted when the font size changes =E2=80=94 and this is currently do=
ne on GNU/Linux already.

Cl=C3=A9ment.


--64JIt0wT1exGc67buU8tI85pkTQ0Hph6V--

--ORTgIIDS4lm2aoeuNKuR5IofTEmeC4d9t
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=iCCm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ORTgIIDS4lm2aoeuNKuR5IofTEmeC4d9t--

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:05:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149502989623885 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149502989623885
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 14:05:02 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 14:04:56 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50971 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dAzZQ-0006DB-54
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:04:56 -0400
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:38881)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <drew.adams@HIDDEN>) id 1dAzZN-0006Cv-Vh
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:04:54 -0400
Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71])
 by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id
 v4HE4ljr022246
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 14:04:47 GMT
Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235])
 by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4HE4k81029634
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 14:04:46 GMT
Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13])
 by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v4HE4hXK028426;
 Wed, 17 May 2017 14:04:44 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1  (1003210) [OL
 12.0.6767.5000 (x86)]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)

> > See my reply to bug #26958.  Should we have two requests:
> > 1. Wavy (and plain) underline to follow text scaling (#26958).
> > 2. Be able to configure underline line-width (#26959).
>=20
> Yes, that's a great summary.
>=20
> > Is #2 enough?  If we could customize the :line-width for :underline
> > (and :overline? and :strike-through?), would that be sufficient, or
> > is there also a need for such lines to be sensitive to text scaling?
>=20
> I don't think so =E2=80=94 sensitivity to text scaling would be a useful,=
 distinct
> feature.  Otherwise Lisp code will have to inspect font sizes and adjust
> thickness based on it, which will cause inconsistencies.  Additionally, t=
he
> amount of space between the text and the underline needs to be adjusted w=
hen
> the font size changes =E2=80=94 and this is currently done on GNU/Linux a=
lready.

Whatever decision is made about what the most appropriate behavior
is, should we make it optional, e.g., give users a way to _not_
scale such lines, boxes, etc.?

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:08:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149503363429637 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149503363429637
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 15:08:02 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 15:07:14 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51044 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB0Xi-0007hx-IB
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:07:14 -0400
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:50961)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>) id 1dB0Xg-0007hi-AM
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:07:13 -0400
Received: from [18.26.2.123] ([18.26.2.123]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de
 (mreue101 [212.227.15.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 0Lmcct-1dlAIx2NoR-00aAhx; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:07:00 +0200
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 11:06:53 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="KQfuc3aXElggW50X84QG4a9LeVCvQhhqU"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:yzEvpFstaGubYIQBH1BVHQdwuWZjo9udi/el5HzYcOt+SOyGdZH
 rwSaXs9HSRuUKeYQwxsl1KPYFTARSDkZdt5y65klY9enfHaXF/BbQYvH9ztqCWGLQccZITZ
 hGeQ92EnQFSWuknmX13zbmpf1tuFgDPOICGFASkPA2mzHOz1MdeHcuMrAumeibPeVPqLapx
 NDVCqZW4iD41r6m27KycQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:jkiSpW+IqpM=:VRNancaLcoIruLHXQUdvtV
 RQLdW3L5R0Toi9JrcZhOYTmCUlSBynO6IMkh5vyNQhnE6ps3Qxm5l8XHibkg2C0CanEdjhYfQ
 labzqAm4XDManKhal22y4N06/L3EEK+yZJwYvhbo2e2Pmbq7BxKCLHlf37QEVXoXg5WpHqq7e
 Lczqz0hlZX9/+MRGrNIztDkkZYrn4KgjmPsZtC2ep0TXVCdvasP6+c9ny2MPW6g1Wwv+LewTE
 JSEU1ymTcRdMqN2Jv19LghgYt+9upsnL5vcvqpG/AslJmCro2CaQ5dAGGz/dU5eIKAKvBx6hs
 5tK2xg1umE/2U2YInJ5JMlEzDkXytSlJviujiYH3LnpMTYhVuBgMAHB3pw1ukGuEpRMEzjBGD
 ERPS/kaYQRhAliGsBELpCG1TNZSWhdi5ahWhKjbq/5o2qOFWbSxJZU6X4KNXKPxjh/WzewoGF
 gcN6jNKM7nVMhYWUDxgTrqF5kTrO8L+/DUw26y1Hi860t4cPv/YJytLMrIyxldsk3iL4CXSp6
 jyR6CM2ECwutVd1yo+EGsCPkCBeJm0tZ5OyAiHHQTUnLPtYkzbOsmwXoxmo0vfbYApGADX10+
 VGboM2SEh2TM5yIzjZ62G47AYQYUzpAAK9saszk+Ns5XOZD4uF1JZJVJW0X+JoMATsyu6hPNJ
 YzS5YXkw5fWZkz9bmTER2vtwkGRfHMCtrvPguED+RYbSiKXvwTcH8B9a/hKw2+TC+HQ0=
X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--KQfuc3aXElggW50X84QG4a9LeVCvQhhqU
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="6lFpqP2J6h7lv2kGCwfUUJO11r5VDG0mm";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
In-Reply-To: <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>

--6lFpqP2J6h7lv2kGCwfUUJO11r5VDG0mm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2017-05-17 10:04, Drew Adams wrote:
>>> See my reply to bug #26958.  Should we have two requests:
>>> 1. Wavy (and plain) underline to follow text scaling (#26958).
>>> 2. Be able to configure underline line-width (#26959).
>>
>> Yes, that's a great summary.
>>
>>> Is #2 enough?  If we could customize the :line-width for :underline
>>> (and :overline? and :strike-through?), would that be sufficient, or
>>> is there also a need for such lines to be sensitive to text scaling?
>>
>> I don't think so =E2=80=94 sensitivity to text scaling would be a usef=
ul, distinct
>> feature.  Otherwise Lisp code will have to inspect font sizes and adju=
st
>> thickness based on it, which will cause inconsistencies.  Additionally=
, the
>> amount of space between the text and the underline needs to be adjuste=
d when
>> the font size changes =E2=80=94 and this is currently done on GNU/Linu=
x already.
>=20
> Whatever decision is made about what the most appropriate behavior
> is, should we make it optional, e.g., give users a way to _not_
> scale such lines, boxes, etc.?

I think we should wait for an explicit request before introducing such an=
 option: I have not seen complaints about the behavior as currently imple=
mented in GNU/Linux.


--6lFpqP2J6h7lv2kGCwfUUJO11r5VDG0mm--

--KQfuc3aXElggW50X84QG4a9LeVCvQhhqU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=+KsM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KQfuc3aXElggW50X84QG4a9LeVCvQhhqU--

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:41:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149503561332609 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Cc: 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149503561332609
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 15:41:01 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 15:40:13 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51071 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB13b-0008Tr-F4
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:40:13 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48518)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1dB13a-0008Tg-G8
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:40:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1dB13L-0005Sj-F7
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:40:05 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:60802)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1dB13L-0005SM-9c; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:39:55 -0400
Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3869
 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1dB13K-00080P-Ln; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:39:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 18:39:45 +0300
Message-Id: <83h90j5w72.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-reply-to: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN> (message from
 =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel on Wed, 17 May 2017 00:16:47 -0400)
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)

> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 00:16:47 -0400
> 
> Could underline thickness be made configurable? It would be nice to be able to pick between regular and thick/bold underlines (the later would be obtained by doubling the usual underline thickness, I imagine).

You need to be aware of some subtleties with underlines as currently
implemented, and we should consider all of that when we decide what
kind of configurability we want and what should it do.  See below.

> > FWIW, on Windows I see neither straight nor wavy underline thicken.
> > They both continue to have the same line width (thickness) when
> > text-scaled.
> > 
> > Should they not stay the same?  Should they thicken?  Why?
> 
> Thanks for the reply! They do scale in GNU/Linux; the code in xftfont says:
> 
>       font->underline_position = -ft_face->underline_position * size / upEM;
>       font->underline_thickness = ft_face->underline_thickness * size / upEM;
> 
> The corresponding code in w32font says:
> 
>       font->underline_thickness = metrics->otmsUnderscoreSize;
>       font->underline_position = -metrics->otmsUnderscorePosition;
> 
> which might be missing the scaling?

Not all font back-ends support this scaling, and not with every font.
E.g., xfont.c doesn't support this at all, AFAICS.  And while we could
probably add this feature to MS-Windows, it will only be available
with OTF and TTF fonts (I believe it's the same on Unix and GNU
systems).

Moreover, if you mix fonts of different sizes on the same line in the
same run of consecutive underlined characters, you will see that Emacs
defines the thickness and the position of the underline at the first
character, and then reuses those values for the entire run, even if
the size of the font changes -- it doesn't recompute the values when
the font changes.  We do this because anything else will look uglier
than what we have now.

What all this means is that currently the exact visual effect of the
underline attribute is deliberately not well-defined: about the only
thing you can rely on is that you will get a horizontal line somewhere
in the lower portion of the characters.

Implementing your suggestion would require that we define the behavior
much better, which is not easy given the different font drivers and
fonts, on which the user has almost no control.  E.g., we will need to
decide whether thickness customization overrides the font-dependent
scaling, and if not, how these two play together.  And if we want to
allow customization of the underline position (why not?), we will have
to decide what to do with it when the font size changes.  And then we
will need to decide what to do if the font doesn't support scaling.

Bottom line: I think the hard part here is to describe the new
behavior, and do that in way that makes sense.  Implementing that
(assuming the fonts and font backends support the requirements) should
be relatively easy, once all of these hidden issues are figured out.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 16:07:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.14950371862412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.14950371862412
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 16:07:02 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 16:06:26 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51080 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB1T0-0000cq-6W
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 12:06:26 -0400
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:20024)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <drew.adams@HIDDEN>) id 1dB1Sy-0000cd-FK
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 12:06:25 -0400
Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71])
 by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id
 v4HG6Hrv023718
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 16:06:18 GMT
Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235])
 by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4HG6HeZ026009
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 16:06:17 GMT
Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25])
 by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v4HG6EZv001583;
 Wed, 17 May 2017 16:06:15 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1  (1003210) [OL
 12.0.6767.5000 (x86)]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)

> > Whatever decision is made about what the most appropriate behavior
> > is, should we make it optional, e.g., give users a way to _not_
> > scale such lines, boxes, etc.?
>=20
> I think we should wait for an explicit request before introducing such an
> option: I have not seen complaints about the behavior as currently
> implemented in GNU/Linux.

So you are suggesting not only a change in the _default_ behavior
but a change in the behavior altogether.  Why is that the right
approach?  Don't you expect that there are some users or libraries
that currently expect or depend on the current behavior?

Just because someone thinks a change in behavior is a good idea
(and I have no opinion on this one, so far), it doesn't follow
that Emacs should make that change by default or (especially)
as the only possible behavior.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 18:49:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149504692717252 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149504692717252
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 18:49:02 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 18:48:47 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51283 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB407-0004UC-G7
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:48:47 -0400
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.24]:58675)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>) id 1dB405-0004Tw-76
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:48:45 -0400
Received: from [18.189.18.195] ([18.189.18.195]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de
 (mreue102 [212.227.15.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 0LilTh-1dh5tk2Nwr-00czaz; Wed, 17 May 2017 20:48:33 +0200
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
 <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:48:15 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="U01kMOciRetdPrgHlMJ9amIgGWao0GaeO"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:QUohRebVlRLj/rQWf6m8/vN1vlv1YKhYwlrTs6IBFVfMlGK8VRg
 xWfjI+MoQZGusZFVnoDWtUnZAhFs46OC8uaQBsgILE6nxlvGQHp8EjEq9vuIlewksv2AjR0
 ndg47lM9UBvM9tzf3tiCgha61Rqjk/hvDLfPFIMhPIXahACxK1mdKd2KjpfRqEPdsxvQKmv
 6mVd/YLSR7IzaOEqSR3nQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:jAuuXdFFwVk=:zkxYU60OrHPxQSDxu7U3Wy
 2xfBzUHddJ3fx7JbgBbY9q2oPbeWCcw2XPZGF4w2jI1sP8YJnF2puZA4wrSEexWxlK9TfGDQQ
 BseBG+57oP49yoHG+VM2qorlAmuZz1uNzkfgqWd2A4LRkofXTaOz0TRSRYHLCMFbw3aylw8Vz
 8Cs7MYDD7uEU9LLgFa0S0NAeNaFnZI4qzAn6NuP586xq0QsxlH+sgCkCUjL72x3Y/+VWAnXds
 MbNJ189YEvWwpjg8JtmTLCb5JCRXEspN+KE9GtJivcC77MBmD/NDdg+awU9UngHZX0dlTNJW/
 UqgC0FJCY6V5kB8E+NAV23ydraZt2nOqZiUtAlG9QKqiHLRtF0On/oFv5Q75wC+9ZnsyejJxI
 IBrBBrjBHY+cMHsg9wJvwsVpma2S600SBnsFacwCay75HtcrZK/ZOo038cL7DgmoUKAIAAQLe
 7maridLQ7SUa3LzCYkthsyVQ4eB+o2GT/HHA/QC2rB6/X4YKR95v6O5i9Ql5rPKUNBBt8ZBHX
 gqu0nF2Ah/ae7a3yPB78uMmmqoVo7C21UzhrK2qVpxwUL9r5A+c0KwNAYL98kWvekBsDfQc54
 RwlT4xBzZgr/AJI/YZ3iddvfIdJ/GGTf2tVosTxbvDFB4tOqxGcsfRjLX3Jb2eo5jypdViUYc
 48d1KHYzN2MsC16PG8jF/iy5dOKjzoAf3Y93RcKczFzM4g0YCKL6bqzaVc+XFa8TpPLE=
X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--U01kMOciRetdPrgHlMJ9amIgGWao0GaeO
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="77kHpR2PgKwObNwkgvFbxEACS17I7uwh4";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
 <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
In-Reply-To: <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>

--77kHpR2PgKwObNwkgvFbxEACS17I7uwh4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2017-05-17 12:06, Drew Adams wrote:
>>> Whatever decision is made about what the most appropriate behavior
>>> is, should we make it optional, e.g., give users a way to _not_
>>> scale such lines, boxes, etc.?
>>
>> I think we should wait for an explicit request before introducing such=
 an
>> option: I have not seen complaints about the behavior as currently
>> implemented in GNU/Linux.
>=20
> So you are suggesting not only a change in the _default_ behavior
> but a change in the behavior altogether.=20

My OP (in the other thread) was about underlines. With my proposal, the b=
ehavior would not change on Linux for straight underlines.

> Why is that the right
> approach?  Don't you expect that there are some users or libraries
> that currently expect or depend on the current behavior?

How would a library depend on this, given that it isn't consistent across=
 platforms, and not observable from ELisp?

> Just because someone thinks a change in behavior is a good idea
> (and I have no opinion on this one, so far), it doesn't follow
> that Emacs should make that change by default or (especially)
> as the only possible behavior.

Sure. But until someone voices support for what others consider as a bug,=
 it might not make sense to expend resources adding a flag to revert to t=
he old behavior.=20
In any case, maybe we should move this discussion to #26958?


--77kHpR2PgKwObNwkgvFbxEACS17I7uwh4--

--U01kMOciRetdPrgHlMJ9amIgGWao0GaeO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=Lyup
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--U01kMOciRetdPrgHlMJ9amIgGWao0GaeO--

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 19:01:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149504761418277 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Cc: 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149504761418277
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 19:01:02 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 19:00:14 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51289 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB4BB-0004kj-Jx
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 15:00:13 -0400
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([217.72.192.74]:53541)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>) id 1dB4B9-0004jm-K2
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 15:00:12 -0400
Received: from [18.189.18.195] ([18.189.18.195]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de
 (mreue104 [212.227.15.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 0MDPnp-1dCRbt22cH-00GpPM; Wed, 17 May 2017 21:00:04 +0200
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <83h90j5w72.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <6ad09d0f-d9e5-d544-f2e1-a7bf561556f6@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:59:56 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <83h90j5w72.fsf@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="RtCjLcV5kNopUIbAcGg7S4D2xo7kJ13UT"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:aoEvGYEioSsaHIFfMU+T6vDjQz6425R3AvnLF0sNgRcDLsgZHQ3
 XTqHDBGIDxSqp31lFd+m2X3B5ZF4KRy4pqmiIE7spt4SBDs5FbCGa9U8IonVwijkP3M2xbK
 Tl3O/hjAOHjn8C3A89iIeOpfbmXL/pchC/A0h95EWe22LrUQDy9j2aCmdLwsShzNUqgCiP8
 ragL8450IF7vhP+/tNhyg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:HkAL7x7NuLw=:opbNOR3is4dpl2CG3AE4kt
 75vBUp3H11O64oYOXL/mP4KI6/1al/F+ixD3NCBmWVw06TknM7LSthQIRr5B2eBjqCsgSsJUp
 WqVwJSrYv5/2uD+BrZZy2Z6CV/E0sjCR7r77dOT8gvfrpMbpMVEpzC5peSbZACNIDii3wwZdk
 JV7Zw3tpJsmKCBVpJhM+lUueQ0PxOtid7Wqy8ZBdQ2P3+WZ7J97aCdPEnPeF3/psrvLIQqu4s
 wTZIWwhVCoW7C1PyZ5iyk7xcEeQ0RXEpIbmE701PLBHwXcAmYTgmqWkvAnJFuS50h5DJ0WEBW
 WAxlC5OYMQwUSgGXuGTmbcN4zcCDw4wBt9E32RaDRw33/inFjGXWWxQUSpBn8IMSX0AOo02n1
 3z6p01VECurV1BRq4MY89XxrIXTKodn8fZzEy5whb3XRc/RbDsWk3TEOLzIAzcnPLGW6v1c1V
 fREH+imMA8Lm+yxstCv3Pj+jTcmm3jmI3YyzamRVYuaiiECVWk6GkzJ0eapFV0JfwxysBKKUi
 bGhgdMau/FH6dz8EEndSqf/stuP7Yb2otDt+FXqkfCcBFb+DtfTzTG6LvHnzv4hqa8sIPiUbI
 MZJzhUvJcz/nEuERlLdFE7+BUi5NEgKlIntuZMIK6o0coKXr7+p2i6UObmZtix79ZmZdaVm3G
 JtJh2S1DDpi0axz5SrQehgfXdx8qnn7Ae/YsgJV5wgeydvsNMiP0lJXYMKWU7Tzd6+To=
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--RtCjLcV5kNopUIbAcGg7S4D2xo7kJ13UT
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="n3k6fUCeJupFhCMlPD40VIbb6elj1PCUS";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Cc: 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <6ad09d0f-d9e5-d544-f2e1-a7bf561556f6@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <83h90j5w72.fsf@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <83h90j5w72.fsf@HIDDEN>

--n3k6fUCeJupFhCMlPD40VIbb6elj1PCUS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2017-05-17 11:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Cl=C3=A9ment Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
>> Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 00:16:47 -0400
>>
>> Could underline thickness be made configurable? It would be nice to be=
 able to pick between regular and thick/bold underlines (the later would =
be obtained by doubling the usual underline thickness, I imagine).
>=20
> You need to be aware of some subtleties with underlines as currently
> implemented, and we should consider all of that when we decide what
> kind of configurability we want and what should it do.  See below.
>=20
>>> FWIW, on Windows I see neither straight nor wavy underline thicken.
>>> They both continue to have the same line width (thickness) when
>>> text-scaled.
>>>
>>> Should they not stay the same?  Should they thicken?  Why?
>>
>> Thanks for the reply! They do scale in GNU/Linux; the code in xftfont =
says:
>>
>>       font->underline_position =3D -ft_face->underline_position * size=
 / upEM;
>>       font->underline_thickness =3D ft_face->underline_thickness * siz=
e / upEM;
>>
>> The corresponding code in w32font says:
>>
>>       font->underline_thickness =3D metrics->otmsUnderscoreSize;
>>       font->underline_position =3D -metrics->otmsUnderscorePosition;
>>
>> which might be missing the scaling?
>=20
> Not all font back-ends support this scaling, and not with every font.
> E.g., xfont.c doesn't support this at all, AFAICS.  And while we could
> probably add this feature to MS-Windows, it will only be available
> with OTF and TTF fonts (I believe it's the same on Unix and GNU
> systems).

Makes sense. And, of course, the scaling is outside of Emacs' control on =
TTYs.

> Moreover, if you mix fonts of different sizes on the same line in the
> same run of consecutive underlined characters, you will see that Emacs
> defines the thickness and the position of the underline at the first
> character, and then reuses those values for the entire run, even if
> the size of the font changes -- it doesn't recompute the values when
> the font changes.  We do this because anything else will look uglier
> than what we have now.

I saw this, indeed.

> What all this means is that currently the exact visual effect of the
> underline attribute is deliberately not well-defined: about the only
> thing you can rely on is that you will get a horizontal line somewhere
> in the lower portion of the characters.
>=20
> Implementing your suggestion would require that we define the behavior
> much better, which is not easy given the different font drivers and
> fonts, on which the user has almost no control.  E.g., we will need to
> decide whether thickness customization overrides the font-dependent
> scaling, and if not, how these two play together.  And if we want to
> allow customization of the underline position (why not?), we will have
> to decide what to do with it when the font size changes.  And then we
> will need to decide what to do if the font doesn't support scaling.

That makes sense, but I'm not sure all of this is needed. I agree that it=
 would be nice, but is it really necessary?=20
In terms of code, my suggestion would translate into multiplying the `thi=
ckness' variable in xftfont by 2 when :bold t is specified in the underli=
ne's property list.

> Bottom line: I think the hard part here is to describe the new
> behavior, and do that in way that makes sense.  Implementing that
> (assuming the fonts and font backends support the requirements) should
> be relatively easy, once all of these hidden issues are figured out.

Thanks for the explanation.
Cl=C3=A9ment.


--n3k6fUCeJupFhCMlPD40VIbb6elj1PCUS--

--RtCjLcV5kNopUIbAcGg7S4D2xo7kJ13UT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=mua1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RtCjLcV5kNopUIbAcGg7S4D2xo7kJ13UT--

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 19:49:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149505052122733 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149505052122733
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 19:49:01 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 19:48:41 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51339 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB4w5-0005ub-7F
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 15:48:41 -0400
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:43560)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <drew.adams@HIDDEN>) id 1dB4w3-0005uL-A7
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 15:48:39 -0400
Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74])
 by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id
 v4HJmVJX022667
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 19:48:32 GMT
Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75])
 by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4HJmV1T018910
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 19:48:31 GMT
Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25])
 by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4HJmUU3024635;
 Wed, 17 May 2017 19:48:30 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2bfebc61-6c10-4463-bc1d-b4d1ce76c950@default>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 12:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
 <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
 <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1  (1003210) [OL
 12.0.6767.5000 (x86)]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)

> >>> Whatever decision is made about what the most appropriate behavior
> >>> is, should we make it optional, e.g., give users a way to _not_
> >>> scale such lines, boxes, etc.?
> >>
> >> I think we should wait for an explicit request before introducing such=
 an
> >> option: I have not seen complaints about the behavior as currently
> >> implemented in GNU/Linux.

Have we seen complaints by MS Windows users that underlines (straight,
curly) do not scale with the text?

> > So you are suggesting not only a change in the _default_ behavior
> > but a change in the behavior altogether.
>=20
> My OP (in the other thread) was about underlines. With my proposal,
> the behavior would not change on Linux for straight underlines.

But it would change for wavy underlines, no?

And it would likely change for underlines more generally on some
non-[GNU]Linux platforms, no?
=20
> > Why is that the right
> > approach?  Don't you expect that there are some users or libraries
> > that currently expect or depend on the current behavior?
>=20
> How would a library depend on this, given that it isn't consistent across
> platforms, and not observable from ELisp?

A user may be on only one platform.  A user's code (including a
library) might expect particular behavior on this or that platform.

Like it or not, people get used to existing behaviors, and people
write code that expects that behavior.

It's possible for Emacs to change the behavior, but it's unusual
to change not only the default behavior but the only possible one.

Is there a reason why we would have to do that?  Why not offer a
choice?  Why not let a user set her preference?  Why not let a
program control whether such line-scaling occurs?

> > Just because someone thinks a change in behavior is a good idea
> > (and I have no opinion on this one, so far), it doesn't follow
> > that Emacs should make that change by default or (especially)
> > as the only possible behavior.
>=20
> Sure. But until someone voices support for what others consider as a bug,=
 it
> might not make sense to expend resources adding a flag to revert to the o=
ld
> behavior.

If it is decided that the current behavior is just a bug then yes,
it could be changed unconditionally.  Is it that clear that this is
only a bug?  Is there a reason to suppose that no one would want
the current behavior or no one would want to choose whether to
scale such lines?

> In any case, maybe we should move this discussion to #26958?

Yes.  This one (#26959) already takes the point of view of allowing
users a choice.  (That's a good thing.)

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 20:12:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149505191924829 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149505191924829
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 20:12:01 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 20:11:59 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51366 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB5Ic-0006SN-Cr
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 16:11:59 -0400
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.24]:53476)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>) id 1dB5Ia-0006SA-Lp
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 16:11:57 -0400
Received: from [18.26.2.123] ([18.26.2.123]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de
 (mreue104 [212.227.15.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 0Lnjkl-1ddGyz1NHj-00hsIy; Wed, 17 May 2017 22:11:46 +0200
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
 <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
 <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
 <2bfebc61-6c10-4463-bc1d-b4d1ce76c950@default>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <310a23eb-8c5f-2405-5e55-3ebb97526489@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 16:11:39 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2bfebc61-6c10-4463-bc1d-b4d1ce76c950@default>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="jEEJwU4OcI2nvMPwK7a2qScQsB0lStSn0"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:CO8XaQI9hqueAY1U5AF/Cd6mAmfqvH5TuHUGJGye5wiYB93XngO
 OCKTkOFqXMk/fmyjFvuOD09pHyRSbj2c0RRLcinqeeacfZ/AD2Mq/DWTael0HMp8XXBiTPR
 aP2vZfcCyI/nWA/MxI+7uS1iMGHOhZp4fO1akV/IzVxloI+9IC1+O16pq7PNPHK9GnOromd
 0ZSZ10qNTJnCsQ/I2siUg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:tPEHRsIwfV8=:xA+YDVqlcyFdTRO+Wk5DqW
 EgWti/nRpYIDgnDxLIwv3WF+DsuxdJC1WTUQivTL/Huxa31hni9hVQBBhFQUp9PTdmfaEGlSs
 ZYcqAymuWdONyKzGJPWHD+LC4eXWt4NHLIMl0eE2Wb7aDikjtk+UIzfDYMvwONNvD2bLPDcHB
 r2Ju92AJuixufxY8lWJBuLM8FeCfA48MZwmvi4zuHVd56WarBr8AQuZXysKzdFnRqm0PbyjjZ
 rNVnIQW+2HXsQtlMeP6Ib0mRIcVpo1xR3mc4LUAvKa6tAYiJCbBBBlQBk+PhIu/n/Q2OCVfgV
 /Y7TK9kZ4mdFcQVW5RssdT8YyS9MDsq+We+6z4MVeatjKyykpSyAGe0b+YjenoKLppGF3Y0qS
 5ZYsTOzwc6DsvIO00n49484/nT84CYyfARU5vnjJTqvkxdstCQoVXKCv4Po9e6HDshutr/+VN
 EPwfOgVMErXzHQ2uOxah89PKlFFn8M+aj6uAdfulM8Srxzfspq/totIlM9Q4esUBKh5MREqkF
 WAmdN6wwSfR8AfoidWAtA1a/yXNvf6y9GYJxrx0u5qeb4RoTqJd2egppjRcooKSkGDlfQGbLS
 H0Oakg93OpILJJQBJnleKhGrLqtU2FJEh130XUduW3QKh0hXibXZQdBCH7MApKkyX2Q5Q10y2
 AA8IEciTfwWUFmvkWpQREWl2LyPs+ZQ7uh2+AYdeDBZnnJM8C0coVJ6MHPD5DUlu5dQk=
X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--jEEJwU4OcI2nvMPwK7a2qScQsB0lStSn0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PflT3sWFmdwCudipcXA5mIVijaVHwFENB";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <310a23eb-8c5f-2405-5e55-3ebb97526489@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
 <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
 <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
 <2bfebc61-6c10-4463-bc1d-b4d1ce76c950@default>
In-Reply-To: <2bfebc61-6c10-4463-bc1d-b4d1ce76c950@default>

--PflT3sWFmdwCudipcXA5mIVijaVHwFENB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2017-05-17 15:48, Drew Adams wrote:
> Like it or not, people get used to existing behaviors, and people
> write code that expects that behavior.

I don't understand how Lisp code can depend on this behavior. Can you cla=
rify?


--PflT3sWFmdwCudipcXA5mIVijaVHwFENB--

--jEEJwU4OcI2nvMPwK7a2qScQsB0lStSn0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=hCki
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jEEJwU4OcI2nvMPwK7a2qScQsB0lStSn0--

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 21:10:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149505536929959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149505536929959
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 21:10:01 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 21:09:29 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51398 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB6CG-0007n9-Sa
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:09:29 -0400
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:30289)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <drew.adams@HIDDEN>) id 1dB6CF-0007mv-5t
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:09:27 -0400
Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234])
 by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id
 v4HL9JK2023556
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 21:09:20 GMT
Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236])
 by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4HL9JZ8032276
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 21:09:19 GMT
Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25])
 by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4HL9ISH031138;
 Wed, 17 May 2017 21:09:18 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4bb89771-4941-41a4-a446-e2485c9f0c8a@default>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
 <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
 <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
 <2bfebc61-6c10-4463-bc1d-b4d1ce76c950@default>
 <310a23eb-8c5f-2405-5e55-3ebb97526489@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <310a23eb-8c5f-2405-5e55-3ebb97526489@HIDDEN>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1  (1003210) [OL
 12.0.6767.5000 (x86)]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)

> > Like it or not, people get used to existing behaviors, and people
> > write code that expects that behavior.
>=20
> I don't understand how Lisp code can depend on this behavior.
> Can you clarify?

Is it clearer if I say that people write code to do something,
and they can expect it to do what it did previously.

The point is that it is not only about a user option.  You might
have written code that had a given behavior, and now that behavior
changes without your having changed the code.  Whether you are a
user of that code or its maintainer, you might not appreciate the
change.

Giving users and code a way to choose the behavior usually makes
sense.  Is there some special reason it would not make sense in
this case?  What is the imperative to change from A as the only
possible behavior to B as the only possible behavior, unless it
is agreed that A is a bug and B is the right fix for it?

This is all hypothetical.  I don't have a horse in this race.
I have no idea which behavior is better in general, or which
would be preferred by most users most of the time.  Maybe you
can point to a UI guideline somewhere or some doc that speaks
about this?

Why does it make sense, a priori, that an underline thickness
would scale along with the text?  Not to mention the nuances
that Eli tried to point out.  It is already tricky to deal
with Emacs box line-widths and such together with things like
interline spacing.

I think that before we even get to the question of whether
this should be changed unilaterally or offered as a new
possibility the behavior should be well specified or
demonstrated.

FWIW, I just checked in a non-Emacs application (Arbortext
editor) on MS Windows, and non-wavy underlining does not seem
to zoom along with the text.

Now maybe that's because the particular use of that wavy
underlining, in this application, is to highlight spelling errors.

One could imagine that in one use case it is used for something
like that, and it is deemed better not to scale it, but in
another use case, where the underlining is considered part of
the text itself, it is deemed better to scale the underlining
too.  I kind of expected that in the Arbortext case, expecting
to see that a normal (straight) underline would zoom along with
its text.  But no, at least for Arbortext that is not the case.

Still, I think it makes sense, a priori, to let Emacs code
decide in any given context: is the underlining to be treated
as in a sense part of the text, i.e., do you want it to scale
with the text, or is it to be treated separately?  (Clearly it
needs to zoom horizontally along with the text.)

I tried the same test with MS Word.  There, the wavy underline
to show spelling problems likewise does not scale with the text,
but a straight underline does scale with the text.  (That's what
I was expecting for Arbortext too.)

In terms of use cases I think it mostly comes down to whether
a given user or application wants to consider the particular
underlining style to be, in a sense, part of the text itself,
or to belong to some other level (e.g. content annotation/metadata).

(And we are still writing about bug #26959 in the bug #26958
thread...)

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 21:23:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149505617131129 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149505617131129
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 21:23:01 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 21:22:51 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51408 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB6PD-000861-DU
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:22:51 -0400
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([217.72.192.73]:58625)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>) id 1dB6PA-00085m-OF
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:22:49 -0400
Received: from [18.26.2.123] ([18.26.2.123]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de
 (mreue102 [212.227.15.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 0MVLxe-1dULyd1x6c-00Yiez; Wed, 17 May 2017 23:22:37 +0200
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
 <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
 <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
 <2bfebc61-6c10-4463-bc1d-b4d1ce76c950@default>
 <310a23eb-8c5f-2405-5e55-3ebb97526489@HIDDEN>
 <4bb89771-4941-41a4-a446-e2485c9f0c8a@default>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <95d227ba-bd44-742f-2501-ca47f28d3d0b@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 17:22:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4bb89771-4941-41a4-a446-e2485c9f0c8a@default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:5zGcVfBn/ET7dntSZJuxM8s8DHwfzUDb87/bCMz9X2dY+yEkJNw
 QXOK8k3tODgn3nCf98eKPPR5XAg/vrH1hbNrD8N4lp6cLPV7lK+0gXGofMfKZERpZAXl6jw
 DRtfIqwf84MHgHBQf///wRzKaYkT5jZX8BPtQput3qg9vCnhiZprgofGhmIG3pzLHfRVOGD
 8IsZ5uEL0JX/bu81baZlQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:GTuffXo/eEw=:8L2+WWEZiq4dyrIb0xPSDp
 rTm+F9BH9Zdg52rCCwOkANR2YNZtuID1PE4c4jikMKj43bykiDI9ERV6F5/Q5F8Y6043CRcsy
 bQtcoTzbtnhMJMN7YgUIIK5xf88NkhUxU6lMijcyUKQWILFMT7xfU9J7wEVmKN/vques1wH3y
 lOewRJbE7A7zkJqQ1ceIirwKyTye7Be+Afid7fA7qf4tsWrC+3vB6LbmXZ7dNKxVAFhxsuCxi
 Ykf6CuNseTb+pSSMsv4NrkK6Rq/VTcQoAhk2fa8YD19farEi3gp6gKKi90957nwd7tjnmUB8g
 0PqIhluD1bX2b7x7iCrEFb90ctoZXb4cFJTIJkD+xUHj9v8mRwPjuTeKYBIZ4vqEjB4sTrRp+
 v61CNHEo+PYWUlGTsiQq3HrH31fNsV2cVUMwv/pWKXAgMMdmlrd5g/8PCVLgbzTGFMwh3wb7x
 o3REU/p1FO6Jt9II5980KePiA/5FwM76y0HzFcfWhjNUO2i/m6I0fle4KUJyLoolbWgMcobFE
 EXGN41D1NEWo2PsxyzYkEgfMDvpSJk9359fJa9s0691FOUeuoHKa6xr9DfTuAB1Wf29mubeIP
 pDyDECArXavUhy8Ctmnu175r8mDkNXIcF2fpSIVKPPTDyec/VkjSWBhePkZivYGH9uZhi6iCZ
 5rb4vuXLvf+khMv/FSMxp1hGfADIuDQleEX/PnhMxVhmru/UjZ/ODYc8TcPoIR8HmeZA34bd0
 0JjYQFW61Y2HzwXG
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)

On 2017-05-17 17:09, Drew Adams wrote:
> I tried the same test with MS Word.  There, the wavy underline
> to show spelling problems likewise does not scale with the text

Thanks for testing.  Did you check whether it scaled with pixel density, though? LibreOffice does that.

Clément.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 21:38:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.149505707732554 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>, 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.149505707732554
          (code B ref 26959); Wed, 17 May 2017 21:38:01 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2017 21:37:57 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51432 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dB6do-0008T0-SI
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:37:57 -0400
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:42217)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <drew.adams@HIDDEN>) id 1dB6dn-0008Sn-38
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:37:55 -0400
Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74])
 by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id
 v4HLbm9n019158
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 21:37:48 GMT
Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75])
 by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4HLbmws011565
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 17 May 2017 21:37:48 GMT
Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25])
 by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4HLbmUi014449;
 Wed, 17 May 2017 21:37:48 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7051c322-67d6-4e59-8684-45fe4f61544f@default>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@HIDDEN>
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <76ec819b-3daa-43c5-bc91-7a3f0a86b857@default>
 <2e85019c-a970-dfcb-9c33-233c39fc59b4@HIDDEN>
 <49a934d2-fd0b-4b5d-bd77-379d0d3f95fc@default>
 <91ebc787-acba-55b5-0129-221c5359736d@HIDDEN>
 <a1c4a5e3-7b0a-4635-af72-e25562345059@default>
 <e4cb02eb-c05f-f4d4-c66b-3706dbb01800@HIDDEN>
 <2bfebc61-6c10-4463-bc1d-b4d1ce76c950@default>
 <310a23eb-8c5f-2405-5e55-3ebb97526489@HIDDEN>
 <4bb89771-4941-41a4-a446-e2485c9f0c8a@default>
 <95d227ba-bd44-742f-2501-ca47f28d3d0b@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <95d227ba-bd44-742f-2501-ca47f28d3d0b@HIDDEN>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1  (1003210) [OL
 12.0.6767.5000 (x86)]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)

> > I tried the same test with MS Word.  There, the wavy underline
> > to show spelling problems likewise does not scale with the text
>=20
> Thanks for testing.  Did you check whether it scaled with pixel density,
> though? LibreOffice does that.

Dunno what that means.  I took screenshots and checked the number
of pixels in the screenshots (zooming in on them in an image editor).
HTH.

Please don't count on me to test or debug this.  I've already
spent more time on this than I wanted to.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26959: Feature request: bold underlines
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 04:12:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26959.B26959.14950806669595 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26959
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
Cc: 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Received: via spool by 26959-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26959.14950806669595
          (code B ref 26959); Thu, 18 May 2017 04:12:02 +0000
Received: (at 26959) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 May 2017 04:11:06 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51664 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dBCmH-0002Uf-KR
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 00:11:05 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41060)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1dBCmG-0002UA-E8
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 00:11:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1dBCm7-0002Mh-R8
 for 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 00:10:59 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44784)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1dBCm7-0002Mb-FG; Thu, 18 May 2017 00:10:55 -0400
Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4908
 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1dBCm6-0007IL-Nq; Thu, 18 May 2017 00:10:55 -0400
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 07:10:47 +0300
Message-Id: <838tlu6bzs.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-reply-to: <6ad09d0f-d9e5-d544-f2e1-a7bf561556f6@HIDDEN> (message from
 =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel on Wed, 17 May 2017 14:59:56 -0400)
References: <b7f45023-40c2-61c3-e0ad-347b9a794631@HIDDEN>
 <83h90j5w72.fsf@HIDDEN> <6ad09d0f-d9e5-d544-f2e1-a7bf561556f6@HIDDEN>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)

> Cc: 26959 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@HIDDEN>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:59:56 -0400
> 
> > What all this means is that currently the exact visual effect of the
> > underline attribute is deliberately not well-defined: about the only
> > thing you can rely on is that you will get a horizontal line somewhere
> > in the lower portion of the characters.
> > 
> > Implementing your suggestion would require that we define the behavior
> > much better, which is not easy given the different font drivers and
> > fonts, on which the user has almost no control.  E.g., we will need to
> > decide whether thickness customization overrides the font-dependent
> > scaling, and if not, how these two play together.  And if we want to
> > allow customization of the underline position (why not?), we will have
> > to decide what to do with it when the font size changes.  And then we
> > will need to decide what to do if the font doesn't support scaling.
> 
> That makes sense, but I'm not sure all of this is needed. I agree that it would be nice, but is it really necessary? 

Perhaps not.  But any subset of this we choose to implement should be
consistent and should make sense to users.

> In terms of code, my suggestion would translate into multiplying the `thickness' variable in xftfont by 2 when :bold t is specified in the underline's property list.

Even if the bold attribute starts in the middle of a consecutive run
of underlined characters?  IOW, should this override the current
behavior of computing the thickness only once per such run?

Last modified: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:00:02 UTC

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