By interoperability, I mean interoperability with different language line breaking requirements. For example, Thai (and a number of other languages) requires dictionary based support for line breaking. ICU supports this today, while it is highly unlikely we would ever add this support to the existing FOP implementation of UAX14.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]>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 seems to be out of date and basically unmaintained.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 >> > >
