Problem with field borderwidth 2

[Wilhelm Sanke]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:

> (snip)
> I think I learned some of it in an email with Scott Raney when he was
> doing support for MetaCard (the OS X appearances were put into the
> engine before its acquisition by RunRev);  when I first saw the
> relationship between borderWidth and OS rendering I filed a bug report
> (he explained it's a feature).  The rest I learned through 
> experimentation.
>
> This should definitely be documented, and I feel there should be an
> explicit property for the control to determine whether it uses native
> appearances or not.  Relying on magic combinations of what should be
> irrelevant properties (who would think that changing the borderWidth
> would determine whether the OS renders the control?) is, to be as polite
> as possible, suboptimal.
>
> What shall we call this new property?  Has this been proposed in
> Bugzilla yet?
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin



As these transparent borders of fields only appear  on WindowsXP and 
only when a borderwidth of 2 is set, this should be considered an 
anomaly that must be abandoned. To invent a new property just for such 
borderwidth-two fields is too much honor for this bug.

I have submitted an enhancement request/bug report along with the sample 
stack "Fieldborder Test" (Bugzilla 2508).-

Richard continued in his next post:

> Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
>
> >> The workaround you proposed, style "shadow" and setting "shadowoffset"
> >> to zero, does not solve the problem.
>
> If you turn on the threeD property it should.  What happens there when
> you do it?


Turning the threeD property on or off does not make a difference here.


> >> What really works is setting the "Look and Feel" to "Windows emulated"
> >> or to "Windows 95" (sic!) with Metacard.
>
>
> I tend to try to confom to current HIGs as much as practical, so turning
> off XP appearances isn't an option for me, which is why I tend to focus
> on control-specific options when I need a specific control to have a
> non-standard appearance.
>
> But if the emulated Win95 look is good for what you're doing then I see
> no reason not to use it.
>
>   Richard Gaskin



I see the emulated Win95 look as a workaround and hope Bugzilla 2508 
will be fixed soon.


--Wilhelm Sanke
<www.sanke.org/MetaMedia>