GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 170152
Allow markup (underlining etc) in text
Last modified: 2005-10-25 13:53:38 UTC
I do not seem to find a possibility to use underlined text in gimp, in the text box I just get normal, bold, italic.
Normal, bold, and italic are different types of fonts; underline is a style attribute and must be handled differently, by enhancing the text tool to handle "markup" and providing a way for the user to control it. This is certainly a valid thing to want, and I can't find an existing bug report that specifically deals with it, so I will confirm this one. In fact, I will set the priority to High. You should by the way at least upgrade to GIMP 2.2 before filing enhancement requests, otherwise you are in danger of requesting things that already exist. (Or did you just forget to set the version?)
It's easy to underline text using the existing functionality in GIMP. The implementation in the text tool would be non-trivial and there are more important text tool enhancements that should be done first. Setting priority to Low.
What is that easy solution?
I assume Sven means drawing lines to underline the text. I would not consider that such an easy solution myself: it's very difficult to make them look right. In raising the priority, I was thinking more about the ability to change attributes within text than specifically underlining. If this could be done, underlining would be an easy consequence.
All aspects of this bug report besides underlining are handled bug #122706. I just had a look at the new PangoRenderer code and it appears that this improves underlining support compared to earlier versions where underlining support in the PangoFT2 backend used to be poor. We are however not using this new code yet, so underlining would not be an easy consequence of using markup.
So what is the easy workaround? Do I have to go back to Win 3.11 Paint techniques and fiddle around with drawing lines under text? Surely not, that was more than 10 years ago.
Closing as INVALID due to incompetent and rude comments by the bug reporter. This enhancement is sufficiently handled in bug #122706 anyway.
So it is rude and incompetent to tell you that I do not want to use techniques that are outdated by 10 years? Fair enough, I think I hit a weak spot, otherwise there would be no explanation for reacting this exaggeratedly. You should be able to handle the obvious. If you are expected to use a mobile that weighs 1kg you would also ask yourself, is this not a bit out of date? But of course I would tell you that you are incompetent and rude to mention that, would I not. I guess not. There is no proper way to underline text so this bug is not invalid, which may only concern to the validity of the bug and not any comments or what you think of them. You may mark it as duplicate, if this issue is handled in another bug.
Your attitude in this and your other bug *is* rude. Rude behavior is not rewarded. You need to improve your attitude in dealing with people who are volunteers and are doing this in their free time. Since you're once again acting like a whiny brat instead of using your brain, I'm closing this bug as INVALID. Don't reopen this again.
If you'd have asked nicely, we'd have provided you with the easy solution. But since you're an arrogant bastard, you lose.
Bug reporter, what is rude is to *demand* changes in something that you have not paid for or otherwise supported: this is guaranteed to draw angry responses in any free software project. As the saying goes, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Your requests are reasonable but your way of presenting them is like going up to somebody on the street and insisting that he must give you money.
After the anger as hopefully settled, may I ask what easy solutions exist? They are not obvious to me (Other than tracing a line or filling a narrow selection, both of which are not easy to do aesthetically pleasing) and probably many other people as well. Google did not turn up any meaningful tutorials or suggestions besides using "filters->text->freetype", which can't underline and does not retain text attributes. Additionally a "feature request" would probably still apply to simple markup (that includes the not-yet-implemented "justify")?