On 11.04.2004 01:55:48 Peter B. West wrote:
> In connection with our recent discussions concerning font handling, I
> looked at the contentious fontconfig system driven by Keith Packard.

<snip what="very interesting resource"/>

> I have also, as I noted previously, looked briefly at the way fonts are
> defined in Java.  Would I be correct in surmising that the current
> manner of defining fonts is derived from Adobe's methods for PDF and PS?

Correct. At the beginning, there was PDF. The whole thing was pretty
much derived from the PDF-way of handling fonts. PostScript is quite

> If that is the case (a big if) might we not be better to move to a more
> generic form, with translation into each particular form of font
> specification?

I can't tell. I don't see much benefit because the current system
already provides most of what FOP needs. A total rewrite may provide
more flexibility on the long run but will mean a lot of work which is
problematic in FOPs current state.

It should be fairly simple to add the two most important missing features
to FOP font handling: on-the-fly font discovery and font aliases.

On the other side, Keith Packard's system, I guess, would have to be
reimplemented in Java for use to be able to use it.

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to