On 22.12.2005 22:47:24 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Damn :-(

Yes. :-(

> Looks like some more work is needed. Problem is that it does no longer
> depend only on me.
> Basically I agree with reasons 1. and 3. I don't really get the second
> one, perhaps because I don't have a broad view of the problem. However
> the distinction between system fonts and free-standing fonts looks clear
> to me: the former are fonts handled by the Java awt system, for which
> some informations may be lacking (e.g., embedding); the latter are those
> for which a font file is available, and are handled externally.

I know point 2 is more complex than what I could describe in just a few
sentences. I seem to have failed to explain my views here before when
showing them to Victor. Maybe I'm off the road, too. Anyway, thanks for
explaining the way the two font groups are meant to be understood. Not
that I agree with them for some detailed technical reasons. But we can
agree to disagree which does not make your effort worth less in my
opinion. It's not a MUST, it's about the ideal approach I see. It can
always be improved in time.

> Anyway, I think that there is a need for reviewing all the font stuff.
> Some issues about font baselines, character selection, glyph
> substitution and so on haven't been handled yet, or only partially.

Yes, however, none of them is a VIP (very important point). :-) If you
see the latest problems with TTFReader/PFMReader it becomes apparent the
user-friendlyness is such a VIP. Granted, these are very basic problems,
but people tend to run into them.

> I was hoping to see FOrayFont integrated as is in the trunk in a first
> step, before starting to improve the font system and integrate other
> functionalities. This looks like it is impossible.

That was my idea, too. But while reviewing, just too many negative
points showed up for me to be comfortable with integrating this just now
in the main dev line. It's not impossible. It needs some additional work
and then we'll look at it again. I'd love to help more but currently, I
can't. This font stuff is very important to me. And not only because
it's the one topic that got me started with FOP 5 years ago.

> This may be useful anyway to create a branch for the patch, so that
> other people can have a look at it. I made the patch against revision
> 356368. I let you decide.

We can do that, but we'll need some additional feedback from the other
committers. I don't want to decide on that alone.

> I'll spend some time now studying all the needs of a font sub-system for
> a FO processor: on the layout side, regarding the different font types,
> and the various renderers. I'll collect all what has already been said
> on this list; I'll study the font formats in more details. I think I'll
> put all that on a Wiki page, but rather perhaps in the aXSL area, don't
> know yet.

That would be appreciated. You can, of course, use the FOP Wiki if you

> This will require time, I have many things to learn; so don't expect any
> concrete result before... long. Any comment or opinion is welcome.

Thank you very much for your perseverance. I'll try to support you as
much as I can. Maybe I can allocate some time to this in a few weeks
from now.


Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to