On 18/06/13 12:12, Glenn Adams wrote:
> To be more clear, I propose we replace FOP's implementation of UAX14 with
> use of ICU's line break iterator, and that ICU becomes a standard
> dependency for FOP.
> 
> However, before taking a decision on this, allow me to create a branch (on
> github) that actually makes this change so that folks can evaluate it. Is
> that a reasonable approach?

Sure, although creating a branch on Subversion would probably be
preferable.


> 
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> 
>> My position is that it is costing us in interoperability (I mean lack
>> thereof) by failing to use ICU. I don't see any issue about size.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Vincent Hennebert 
>> <vhenneb...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/06/13 06:46, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>>> Is there a reason FOP doesn't use ICU for determining line break
>>>> boundaries? The FOP implementation of UAX14
>>> (org.apache.fop.text.linebreak)
>>>> seems to be out of date and basically unmaintained. According to [1], a
>>>> number of Apache projects are using it, including PDFBox, Xalan, and
>>> Xerces.
>>>
>>> I think the main reason in the past has been the size of the ICU4J jar
>>> compared to FOP’s own jar:
>>> http://markmail.org/thread/krkqlircefpuxlse
>>>
>>> I guess the topic could be revisited today. We could consider adding it
>>> as an optional dependency, or acknowledge that full Unicode support is
>>> taken for granted nowadays and use it by default.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://site.icu-project.org/#TOC-Apache-Projects
>>>>
>>>

Vincent

Reply via email to