+1 if usage is restricted to OTF CFF fonts at first.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Vincent Hennebert <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 > > Vincent > > > On 10/01/13 13:07, Robert Meyer 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 > > > > >
