+1 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Robert Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a > dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for OTF > CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the better > option due to: > > 1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing > 2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released. > 3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature. > > There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional i.e. > FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font is used. At > this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted on. I would > therefore like to start a vote. > > As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore the > decision is left up to the rest of you. > > Regards, > > Robert Meyer >
