I have quickly scanned the OOo hyphenation pages and their NL
hyphenation file. I see the following similarities and differences:

1. OOo's hyphenation patterns are the TeX patterns, like FOP's
hyphenation patterns.
2. FOP's hyphenation patterns are in XML, which is better.
3. FOP's hyphenation patterns contain UC/lc classes, hyphen-char
value, and hyphen-min before and after values. These values were
useful in TeX's context but in FOP they are not determined by the
hyphenation patterns. Therefore they may be redundant.
4. FOP's hyphenation patterns contain the exceptions, which is much

Like FOP now does with OFFO, OOo seems to offer the hyphenation files
as a separate component, which I presume protects their distribution
against incompatible license issues.

In view of the similarity, what would be the advantage of the plug-in,
where FOP code already has the required functionality?

It is of course most regrettable that OOo (and apparently ALTLinux)
uses a slightly different format than FOP. Even so, it should be easy
to make the current FOP code use the ALTLinux hyphenation file
format. It may be more difficult to persuade the OOo people to use
FOP's format. But it should not be too difficult to make their plugin
use it, apart from the exceptions.

Therefore I do not see the advantage of FOP switching to OOo
hyphenation patterns.

Regards, Simon

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Look what I've just found:
> It's LGPL (and so are OO's hyphenation patterns if I remember correctly)
> but if we provide a plug-in mechanism and host the actual adapter under
> the LGPL at we could provide the same
> hyphenation functionality as OO.
> Info on LGPL use by Apache software:
> Now, can we please get rid of all hyphenation patterns in FOP? Please,
> please. Just joking, but I'd feel better.
> Jeremias Maerki

Simon Pepping
home page:

Reply via email to