Hi, Thanks all for voting. The vote has now concluded and has passed with 6 +1 votes.
I will look at merging this patch with trunk and update the necessary documentation soon. To reiterate, the default for Type 1 fonts will be to fully embed unless explicitly stated otherwise in the configuration. Regards, Robert Meyer > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 11:26:23 +0100 > From: vhenneb...@gmail.com > To: email@example.com > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Add Type 1 subset support > > The code has certainly improved since last time. Now glyph names are > being used directly, without any round-trip to Unicode code point and > back to character code. This is great as it simplifies the code quite > a bit and makes it more robust. > > The PostScript parser hasn’t changed so my concerns about its resilience > against ill-formed fonts remain. Also, while memory usage has improved > a bit, there still seems to be unwarranted copying of byte arrays here > and there. For example, the creation of the encrypted portion could be > made on the fly by wrapping the output stream into a FilterOutputStream. > > Overall there is room for further streamlining and simplifying the code. > But since it’s an optional feature I suppose there is no harm in letting > interested users experiment with it. So I’ll vote +1. > > Thanks, > Vincent > > > On 14/05/14 10:22, Robert Meyer wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Following on from the last failed vote for adding Type 1 subset support, I > > have now put forward a modified patch and am ready to try this again. The > > patch went up on Monday to address the issues and comments made by Vincent > > and Luis. This vote will last 5 working days and will finish next Wednesday > > at the same time. > > > > As always if you have any concerns or find anything please let me know. If > > they are small I will try and address the issue before the vote is > > finalized in order to avoid repeating this again. Please note that all type > > 1 fonts will default to full embedding unless you use the > > embedding-mode="subset" as per one of the recommendations from the last > > vote. > > > > Here is my vote: +1 > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Robert Meyer > > > >