+1 for it being an optional dependency.
On Jan 10, 2013 2:45 PM, "Peter Hancock" <peter.hanc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 if usage is restricted to OTF CFF fonts at first.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Vincent Hennebert 
> <vhenneb...@gmail.com>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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Reply via email to