Peter B. West wrote:

> What's the intention for the FOP font system?  Is FOP going to define a
> set of fonts and font metrics in its User Agent font database (as per
> CSS2)?  Will this be defined with reference to the supported renderers
> (statically), the supported renderers and the fonts available on the
> system on which FOP is running (statically + dynamically), or by some
> other means.  XSL-FO does not, AFAIT, expect the User Agent to support
> the degree of font matching specified in CSS2, even though the font
> model is based on CSS2.  E.g. there is no capacity to specify a download
> "src" property.  Users can't specify font characteristics to the same
> degree as in CSS2.

Basically, FOP uses both user-generated font metrics (static) and AWT fonts
(dynamic). AWT fonts are not suitable for embedding, because the AWT system
doesn't tell us how to get to the physical font file. What specifically are
you seeing in CSS2 that XSL-FO doesn't have?

> I have always assumed that rendering consistency was not guaranteed by
> XSL-FO.  I can't find any reference ATM to justify that.

I think you are right. If the font ain't there, you can't use it.

> > So my basic belief is that FOP should not know anything about
> > this. It should all be configured in the font system. That is how the
> > user imposes his choice of fonts.

I missed this original comment made by Simon Pepping. If, by "font system"
Simon means those fonts available through java's AWT system, this is
unacceptable at the moment because these fonts cannot be embedded. Also, not
all systems have the graphical environment that is required to use the AWT

> If a user renders a given .fo file on two different systems, using the
> same renderer (say, PDF), and specifies a font family (say, Baskerville)
> that does not exist on the first system, but does on the second, what
> result should be expected?

I think either a fallback font should be used with a warning, or an abortive

Victor Mote

Reply via email to