Re: [ft] Freetype, transformations and run-time italic

[Tom Hacohen]

On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 09:17 +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Minor nitpick: It is not possible to `italicize' a glyph: many italic
> glyphs have different shapes compared to the upright version.  What
> you actually want to do is to slant the glyphs (`oblique type').

Thanks for the correction, I'm aware of the difference between italic
and oblique, and yes, I actually meant oblique.

> 
> This is correct behaviour: The advance width doesn't change if you
> slant a glyph.  What you really want to apply at the end of the word
> is an `italic correction' (as used eg. in TeX or groff) so that the
> next non-slanted word doesn't collide with the slanted text.  An
> automatic value might be computed based on the last glyph's height and
> the slant angle.

OK, coming to think about, it makes sense not to change the advance,
because if we do, there'll be too much spacing (visualizing that in my
head).

Thanks,
Tom.