Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Current/default font

[Alex Bligh <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Neil Howe wrote:
> Look at the 1111 bug report. The original change that I described in the
> bug report (as we'd agreed in our meeting) was that we should change
> both the current and default fonts. In the last comment entered by
> Martin on that bug report, he explains why changing the default font is
> not a good idea and suggests we change only the current font. That seems
> to make sense to me.
>
> So I didn't quite understand Alex's comment. Alex, do you mean that you
> still think we should change the default font too, despite the problem
> Martin describes?
>
> Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here.

I was being a bit lazy actually. I just remembered talking about
this for an hour or so with Phil carefully explaining what all the
attributes did, us discussing the various pros and cons, and coming
to the decision concerned. I didn't want to spend another hour
thinking about it. I'm happy to go with whatever Phil is happy
with as he knows far more about the attribute system than I do.

I agree that if we change the default attribute to X and the current
attribute to X, and this results in /no/ attribute going into the
saved document, that would be a bad thing. But I thought Phil had
said this wouldn't happen, because an attribute is always saved.
What we said at the meeting was we didn't want font attributes
for fonts that didn't exist hanging around (as a general point).
If what Martin says is a problem is in fact a problem, then surely
a document whose font is in Arial at the moment would have NO
attributes saved in it, as (by his logic) the current attribute
would have been the default attribute. This means it wouldn't
load in Arial in the first place. That doesn't happen.

But as I said, it was Phil who went through all this and explained
all the attributes and how they worked in a manner that convinced
me it was right, so I'm happy to go with his call.

Alex