+1 for it being an optional dependency. On Jan 10, 2013 2:45 PM, "Peter Hancock" <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 >> > >> > >> > >
