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:* fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.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?
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to