J.Pietschmann wrote: > Victor Mote wrote: > > Is it safe to assume that all *n*x > > platforms have or could get an X environment? > No. This is a FAQ.
Advertising
Sorry. I have seen "headless server" postings go by, but it meant nothing to me. > Well, FOP is already so tightly integrated with Batik that it wont run > without X or PJA. However, I suspect that talking an ISP/ASP into > installing > additional fonts will be more often a major PITA than not, and this > could easily be seen as significant drawback of the "use the system fonts" > approach. And if I were a server provider, I'd be uneasy with customers > dragging in heaps of fonts I have to install and manage. Apart from the > potential to have clashes, getting the X font subsystem to perform with > lots of fonts apparently requires some rather arcane knowledge. Good point, and one that I would not have thought of working in a standalone & static environment. The question then becomes whether 1) FOP should dictate to the end-user that it can only use registered fonts, or 2) the end-user's environment limitations should dictate to FOP that it must build yet another independent font registry system. I am OK with either one, but I think it is good to ask the question before proceeding, as the ripple effect of this decision seems significant. If 99% of ISP/ASP users are using only fonts that would be on their server, or if we don't mind telling them that they should (or use an in-house server, or get the ISP to install the fonts, or ...), then maybe we come to a different decision. How do the other implementations handle this issue? I definitely don't intend to be argumentative here. I may be the odd man out, as the axis that we are concerned with has less to do with servers & performance than typographical flexibility. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
