Vincent Hennebert wrote:

> >>>Integrating FOrayFont in the pre-release would be great...
> >>
> >>Quite unrealistic as it stands now, sorry.
> > 
> > That is your (FOP's) decision, but it makes no sense to me. You are 
> > willing to go backwards in almost any other area, but are 
> unwilling to 
> > *not* go forwards with PostScript font embedding? Even when 
> it is doable?
> > 
> > Still, I appreciate knowing. I'll shift my focus back to getting my 
> > FOray release out the door.
> Victor, from a non-native speaker POV you seem to be a bit 
> overreacting here. I have the feeling that I have misled you 
> because of my bad understanding of the problem. I'm sorry if 
> this is the case.
> Jeremias has a better vision of the situation than me, and I 
> quite agree with him that the integration won't be ready for 
> the pre-release. This does not mean that it will never be 
> done. And after all, all the better: we will have more time 
> to discuss about a clean API.

You didn't mislead me at all, nor did you do anything else wrong. On the
contrary, I appreciate your efforts greatly.

WRT me overreacting, perhaps I have been misunderstood. The font system
works well enough for what FOray needs ATM, but there are a lot of other
things that don't. I have rearranged my priorities to try to make sure that
I am not a bottleneck on any of this for FOP. I guess this made it higher on
my priority list than it was on FOP's, which is pretty stupid. So, having
now a better understanding of where everyone else's priorities are, I am
glad for the opportunity to adjust mine back to where they really ought to
be anyway: FOray.

> P.S.: that said, the PDFRenderer should now work fine with 
> the new font system; converting the SVG library should be 
> pretty easy; this basically works for the AWT viewer. Nothing 
> perfect, but... ;-)

That is good news, and I think you should be applauded for your efforts

Victor Mote

Reply via email to