Let's see if I have any luck obtaining the last resort font for direct inclusion in FOP. If I don't, then we can revisit this. Note that it is a very different problem to create custom fonts than it is to create or slightly modify an FOP configuration file, the former requiring much more know-how, tools, and experience than the latter. You seem to be equating the complexity of these two tasks in your explanation below, but perhaps I misunderstand you.
G. On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>wrote: > I can only repeat the following: either the user is advanced enough to > know how to configure custom fonts that contain all the glyphs they > need, and then a configuration option for a last-resort font will be of > no use to them; Or they are not confident enough yet to create their own > configuration file (or for some reason don’t want to use one), and then > the configuration of a last-resort font will be inaccessible either. > > In both cases I believe that the possibility of configuring > a last-resort font will not help. Improving the user friendliness of > FOP’s behaviour in problematic situations is always welcome, but only if > it remains transparent to the user. > > At the moment a warning is issued when glyphs are missing, listing the > affected code points. Along with using the .notdef glyph, I think that’s > user-friendly enough. > > Vincent > > > Glenn Adams wrote: > > I agree that one should not simply add new configuration specifications > > willy-nilly. As I've said previously, the ideal situation would be to > > include a last resort font as a Base14 font as part of the FOP built-in > font > > set, and I will investigate this possibility. However, in the absence of > a > > built-in last-resort font, there seem to be four options: > > > > 1. add information to the FOP config file, which could be as simple as > > adding an attribute as follows <font lastResort="true"/>; > > 2. add a command line option (even less desirable in my opinion); > > 3. require user to specify a last resort font as last element of > > font-family attribute; however, that this will not actually work in > the > > current implementation, since > FontSelector.selectFontForCharactersInText > > always selects the font that has the most mappings in the context of a > > "word"; > > - for example, if 'A' is an Arabic character and 'L' is a Latin > > character, then one would expect: > > - <block font-family="Arabic,LastResort">ALA</inline> > > - to produce three glyphs [glyph from Arabic font] [glyph from > > LastResort font] [glyph from Arabic font] > > - however, this will not happen because > selectFontForCharactersInText > > finds that two characters in the "word" have a mapping in the > Arabic font > > and one character has a mapping in the LastResort font, so it > chooses the > > Arabic font to process the entire word > > - which results in the following glyphs: [glyph from Arabic font] > > [default 'no-mapping' glyph from Arabic font] [glyph from Arabic > font] > > 4. require user to create their own "aggregate" fonts or modify their > > fonts to including last resort glyphs for all unsupported mappings. > > > > The last solution above is so onerous that effectively makes it a > > non-solution, so we can drop that from consideration, but note that this > > "non-solution" is the only one that would work now. All of the other > three > > require some modifications to FOP, even the third solution which requires > > the author to insert LastResort font into font family specifications. > > > > Regards, > > Glenn > > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Eric Douglas <edoug...@blockhouse.com > >wrote: > > > >> I like your idea of the 'last resort' font, though I didn't like the > >> configuration file to begin with. > >> You could add an option to the configuration file also if you like the > >> configuration file, but I think when the program allows integration > using > >> embedded code, there should be an option for all custom font setup in > the > >> API. > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:59 PM > >> > >> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org > >> *Subject:* Re: Font Glyph? > >> > >> Comment inline. Note that I have assigned the new bug to myself, so I > will > >> undertake the work to satisfy this. > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Vincent Hennebert < > vhenneb...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I’m not keen on adding Yet Another configuratin option to the config > >>> file, there are more than enough already. > >>> > >> What's the purpose in having a configuration file if it isn't used for > >> configuration information? > >> > >> > > >