DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936 [PATCH] Fonts are rendered differently between pdf and awt ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-28 15:55 ------- Hi Peter: What you propose here is interesting, but I am a bit confused. You have split the font configuration into two parts, one for awt and one for pdf, and I see a few differences between them, but I don't understand what these differences are accomplishing. Would you please elaborate a bit on *why* this change solved your problem? My current theory is that any improvement that you have in making awt comparable to pdf is probably due to unintentionally getting the awt renderer to use the free-standing fonts instead of the system fonts (see below) or maybe vice versa. Also, the issue is somewhat bigger than awt vs. pdf, although that can be solved by adding some more roles. The real issue is system fonts (those registered with the o/s), which awt uses, vs. what I call free-standing fonts (those using an independent registration system), which pdf and PostScript use. System fonts don't use or need most of the stuff in the font configuration. The fonts used by the two systems can be different, and even if the fonts are identical, the metrics are obtained differently between the two systems. I have spent much of the past six months refactoring and improving the FOP font system, and I have partly addressed the issue that you mention, by adding a system-font element in the font configuration file. It doesn't do much ATM except recognize that there is a difference. See the notes here: (http://www.foray.org/release.html). If you will elaborate a bit on what you would like to see happen, I am interested. Victor Mote
