Over the past ten years computing has pervaded life in all its facets, and spread over the world. As a consequence computing is now used in all languages and all scripts.
When I open my devanagari test file in emacs, it just works. When I open it in firefox, it just works. The same when I open it in LibreOffice Writer. I am sure that, if I would open it in *the* *Word* processor, it would just work. When I process the file with FOP, it does not work. With the complex scripts functionality, it works, dependent on the use of supported or otherwise suitable fonts. (That is true for all above applications, but apparently those come configured with my system.) So what does a person do who believes in the XML stack to maintain his documentation, and wants to send his documents in Hindi to his customers? See that XSL-FO with FOP is not a suitable solution for him because Hindi uses a complex script? FOP needs the complex scripts functionality to remain a player in the global playing field. This is for me the single overarching consideration to want this functionality in FOP's trunk code, and in, say, half a year in a release. All other considerations are minor, unless one wants to claim that this code will block FOP's further development and maintenance in the coming years. Of course, not everybody needs this functionality, and there is a fear of increased maintenance overhead. But the question is: For whom do we develop FOP? Also for the large part of the world that uses complex scripts? With the development of the complex scripts functionality, Glenn Adams and his sponsor Basis Technologies have created a new reality, which is not going to go away. If this functionality does not end up in FOP, it will probably live on elsewhere. If the FOP team is fine with that, say no to the merge request, and feel comfortable with a trusted niche application. Simon Pepping On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 09:50:24AM +0100, Chris Bowditch wrote: > On 18/10/2011 19:55, Simon Pepping wrote: > >I merged the ComplexScripts branch into trunk. Result: > > Hi Simon, > > As well of the question of how to do the merge there is also the > question should we do the merge? Of course this is a valuable > feature to the community, and Glenn has invested a lot of time in > its development but is it truely production ready? I asked Vincent > to take a look at the branch earlier in the year as it's a feature > we also need, but he had several concerns that have not be > adequately answered. Take a look at comment #30; > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687#c30 > > I'm not sure why Vincent describes it as a "brief look" because he > spent several days on it. I also asked Peter to take a look and he > had similar concerns. 2 or 3 letter variable names are a barrier for > any committer wanting to maintain this code and I don't think it is > a sufficient argument to say that a pre-requisite to maintaining > this code is to be a domain expert. I would hope that any > experienced committer with a debugger should be able to solve some > bugs. Obviously certain problems will require domain expertise, but > the variables names are a key barrier to being able to maintain this > code. > > I realise my comments might be a little controversial and I don't > mean any disrespect to Glenn or his work (which is largely > excellent), but we should at least discuss these topics before the > merge is completed.