On 20.06.2003 21:38:02 Glen Mazza wrote:
> This seems to be another layer of indirection--quite
> useful still--but might the area tree *still* be
> renderer-dependent? ("The involved renderers can be
> asked"--It still has to know which renderers to ask,
> right? It may very well get different answers and
> work differently per renderer then.) If the Area Tree
> wants to know if Tribune New Roman is supported and
> PDF renderer says yes while PS says no, the area tree
> generated would be different for both, I think.
Right in general. I think this cannot be as detailed as individual fonts.
It should be like that: Renderer, do you support font sources X and Y?
Font Source X could be a service providing PostScript Type1 fonts, Font
Source Y could be a service providing fonts available to AWT. The whole
thing will have to happen before processing starts because different
Area Trees have to be generated if the requested set of renderers don't
support the same font sources (AWT against PDF, for example). The
problem is, as we already gathered in the earlier discussion, that I
guess you wouldn't want to simply let FOP generate two different
(!!!pagination!!!) ATs. You will get two different documents. But the
main use case for multiple renderers is to have one doc for printing and
one for the archive. And in this aspect, different output is not
acceptable. Therefore and IMO, multiple output formats in the same
processor run is not worth the pain. But the above concept is still
worthwhile.
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
