Mehdi,
TrueType collections are supported!

On 19.01.2011 10:17:11 mehdi houshmand wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
> I've been looking quite a bit at the fonts packages recently, and you
> are correct neither CFF nor True Type collections are currently
> supported. They both need to be implemented. In terms of how long it
> would take, that's a very speculative question and not quite as simple
> to answer as it may seem. Mostly because it depends what you mean by
> supported? Which output format? Full font embedding or subset
> embedding? If you mean full font embedding, I don't think it would
> take very long assuming the person was familiar with the fonts
> packages, the FOP renderers and probably more importantly the
> PDF/PostScript and CFF specs.
> 
> If you're not familiar with the terms I've used, full font embedding
> is fairly simple, it involves streaming the font byte for byte to the
> PDF document. In PostScript, it's a little more involved because you
> have to stream the font as an ASCII hexadecimal stream and break the
> string up (maximum size is 65535 chars) at table or glyph boundaries.
> Subset font embedding involves remembering which glyphs were actually
> used in the document and creating a subset of the font that include
> only those glyphs used and embedding the subset. The implications are
> that if you have a document with large fonts in, or a lot of different
> fonts, then full font embedding will bloat the file size, this may be
> so big that some printers (especially older ones with small memory
> sizes) may crash. Subset embedding does mean that you have smaller
> file sizes, but may cause issues if you have a print manager that
> holds fonts in memory for future use.
> 
> I should prefix the above by saying I've only just peeked at CFF but
> luckily if you want full font embedding, you probably don't need to do
> much poking around in the CFF spec (only to get a feel of the format
> and what each table does), you'll need to spend more time in the
> PS/PDF spec. The Temp_TrueTypeInPostScript branch, has a patch
> associated with it, that I've been working on to support Full font and
> subset font embedding in the PostScript output format for TrueType
> fonts only, but the new architecture should make it much simpler to
> extend font support. So, if you mean supporting full font embedding of
> CFF in PostScript/PDF it shouldn't take too long. However, if you're
> looking for subset font embedding, this could take a bit longer (I
> wouldn't want to speculate on how long having not looked at the CFF
> spec in great detail).
> 
> Time wise, most of it is going to be testing since if someone was to
> implement support for any font features, I'd very strongly suggest
> JUnit testing as a starting point. The reason being that fonts are
> quite complicated and introducing bugs is both easy to do and
> difficult to root out by simply looking at the final PDF/Postscript
> file. The next issue is having a testbed in order to test regression
> and ensure that changing a method doesn't break some feature for
> another font format. This may sound simple, but that means creating
> the FOs with foreign glyphs, CJK for example, is quite laborious. If
> you take a look at my patch
> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50483), I've added
> JUnit tests for quite a few of the classes in the fonts package so
> that might help you get started. Time wise, most of it is going to be
> testing since if someone was to implement support for any font
> features, I'd very strongly suggest JUnit testing as a starting point.
> The reason being that fonts are quite complicated and introducing bugs
> is both easy to do and difficult to root out by simply looking at the
> final PDF/Postscript file. The next issue is having a testbed in order
> to test regression and ensure that changing a method doesn't break
> some feature for another font format. This may sound simple, but that
> means creating the FOs with foreign glyphs, CJK for example, is quite
> laborious. If you take a look at my patch
> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50483), I've added
> JUnit tests for quite a few of the classes in the fonts package so
> that might help you get started.
> 
> If you do start implementing this feature, don't hesitate to get in
> contact and I can try and share some of my knowledge and/or test-suite
> as an when you require it.
> 
> Sorry for the verbosity of the email, as you'll find, fonts are not to
> be underestimated.
> 
> Mehdi
> 
> 
> On 18 January 2011 23:11, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> > That is a better question, but one I cannot answer, as I have not looked
> > into the CFF support issue. Perhaps another DEV would care to respond.
> > G.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Ivan Ristic <ivan.ris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> >> > Ivan,
> >> > This type of question is best put to the FOP User
> >> > <fop-us...@xmlgraphics.apache.org> email list rather than the developer
> >> > list.
> >>
> >> Actually, I was offering (or considering) to give back some of the
> >> money FOP saved me (when I self-published my book). I don't think
> >> sending my offer to the users' list would be very useful.
> >>
> >>
> >> > In any case, nothing is required of FOP for you to be able to make use
> >> > of Garamond Pro and other Adobe fonts, though certain advanced
> >> > typographic
> >> > features may not be supported. However, if you are not familiar with
> >> > those
> >> > advanced features, then that will likely not affect you. For typical
> >> > western
> >> > writing systems, you should have no problem with existing off the shelf
> >> > Truetype and Opentype fonts.
> >>
> >> Hoping you'd be right, I tried to use Adobe Garamond Pro right now and
> >> FOP 1.0 responded to me with "OpenType fonts with CFF data are not
> >> supported [...]". That leads me to believe that they are indeed not
> >> supported. A search on Google did not yield anything useful. If, on
> >> the other hand, you are saying that my problem can be resolved on the
> >> users' mailing list, I will be happy to give it a try.
> >>
> >> Or maybe I should instead ask, how much work is to support OpenType
> >> fonts with CFF data?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Glenn
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Ivan Ristic <ivan.ris...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Glenn,
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for your quick response. I don't know what those things mean,
> >> >> so I am afraid I can't be more specific. I was talking purely from a
> >> >> end-user perspective, say, being able to purchase Garamond Pro from
> >> >> Adobe and plug it in with no trouble.
> >> >>
> >> >> [BTW, I appreciate the re-send, but I have subscribed to the list and
> >> >> will stay subscribed for the duration of this email thread.]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> >> >> > What do you mean by "fully"? If you are referring to the OpenType
> >> >> > GDEF,
> >> >> > GSUB, GPOS support, then work is already underway to add that
> >> >> > functionality.
> >> >> > See the following for further info:
> >> >> > http://people.apache.org/~spepping/
> >> >> > http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ComplexScripts
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> > Glenn
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Ivan Ristic <ivan.ris...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hi FOP developers,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Could someone in the know possibly give me an estimate about how
> >> >> >> much
> >> >> >> work is needed to get FOP to fully support OpenType fonts? I
> >> >> >> understand that estimates can be tough to work out (and that are
> >> >> >> often
> >> >> >> unreliable), but even having an idea about the needed amount would
> >> >> >> help me a great deal.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If someone came along to sponsor (fund) such development, would that
> >> >> >> be acceptable to the group?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Ivan Ristic
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Ivan Ristic
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ivan Ristic
> >
> >




Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to