Hi John, what I was having in mind is something similar to Apache FOP’s auto detect feature for fonts.
doc: https://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/1.1/fonts.html code: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fonts/autodetect/ Fo inclusion these are some additional candidates https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/ (SIL licensed http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL-FAQ_web&_sc=1#68092c0f) http://dejavu-fonts.org/ (http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/License) Croscore fonts https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/I18N/Liberation_vs_Croscore_fonts I’d think if we can avoid bundling a set of fonts but use OS fonts and/or allow people to use their own will help us in the long run as if the quality is not inline with the ones used by Adobe Reader there will be additional questions/issues/bug reports we are not able to resolve. BR Maruan Sahyoun Am 04.03.2014 um 19:34 schrieb John Hewson <[email protected]>: > Hi Maruan > > Java provides access to platform fonts via AWT and does not reveal the paths > to the fonts > which it finds, so it is not practical to use platform fonts without using > AWT. There have also > been a number of problems with some unix platforms which lack some of the > standard 14 > fonts or which ship with poor quality substitutes. Ideally, PDFBox should > produce the same > result irrespective of which platform it is running on, much like Adobe > Reader (excluding any > missing embedded fonts, of course). > > I’ve had poor experiences in the past with the Nimbus family of fonts from > URW++ but there > are numerous factors (kerning, hinting, metrics, TTF vs Type 1) which may > have changed since > then. We should check out how well these fonts compare with the standard 14 > used by Adobe, > in particular whether or not the metrics actually match (I know that it is > claimed that they do). > > -- John > > On 4 Mar 2014, at 05:48, Maruan Sahyoun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> what about just using the platform fonts? If not then Latex uses the URW++ >> fonts which were made available under the http://www.latex-project.org/lppl >> license. (same fonts are used by Ghostscript). Could check if the license is >> fine with ours. >> >> BR >> Maruan Sahyoun >> >> Am 03.03.2014 um 21:20 schrieb John Hewson <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> I wanted to bring PDFBOX-1959 to the attention of the mailing list. PDFBox >>> is ready to leave AWT font rendering behind as the JDKs rendering has >>> proven to be buggy and we now have our own renderers for all font types in >>> 2.0.0. >>> >>> Before we can do this we need to ship a set of standard 14 fonts with >>> PDFBox as currently the system fonts are being used via AWT. We also need >>> to provide a mechanism for the user to supply their own external fonts for >>> cases where embedded fonts are missing. >>> >>> The main question is, what fonts should we ship? Some of the "free" fonts >>> I've seen render very poorly, any suggestions? Furthermore, are there fonts >>> under more restrictive licenses which we could ship? Apache does allow for >>> such files to be part of a project under certain conditions. >>> >>> Also: Adobe has some font packs, e.g. Japanese, which we could point users >>> towards. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> -- John >> >
