At the moment probably most users do not use complex scripts in FOP. But by giving FOP complex scripts functionality, we hope to expand the user base and their FOP usage, so that in the future maybe most users will use complex scripts in FOP.
I am in favour of enabling complex scripts by default. Simon On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 07:50:58AM -0400, Eric Douglas wrote: > Good call. You'll get more questions enabling it by default if most people > don't need it and it has a significant performance impact. > "Why is this new version so much slower?" > To my users, applications not crashing is the number one priority. > Performance is number two. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pascal Sancho [mailto:pascal.san...@takoma.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:08 AM > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default? > > Hi Glenn, > > IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the > performances. > Can you give an approximative impact? > > > Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit : > > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script > > features (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using > > either (or both) command line option and config file element; the > > question I have is whether to enable or disable by default? > > > > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't > > want advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a > > minor performance penalty. > > > > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or > > want advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to > > do something special to enable this support. > > > > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either way. > > > > G. > > > > -- > Pascal