I haven't followed this thread, but I have to agree with Chris Madden that
a numeric character reference in XML must always mean a Unicode code value.
If FOP is doing something different, then it is broken w.r.t. XML semantics.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Chris <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm finding your tone pretty aggressive, but will attempt to answer
> despite that...
>
> Since Fonts vendors can build the codepages anyway they choose, we
> cannot simply build a static map that takes Unicode and maps to any
> custom codepage. Thus the user must specify non standard code points or
> build/acquire other fonts
>
> This is a legacy of 1970s AFP technology.  There is a codepage titled
> T111200 in AFP land that can be acquired to meet the requirement of
> keeping the codepoints Unicode for AFP output. I've spoken to a couple
> of fonts vendors about building fonts for that code page. There are
> partial fonts in existence that do provide Glyphs for part of the
> Unicode range, but building a complete one is a mammoth task and they
> were quoting six figure $ sums to do so.
>
> Unless the OP has such a font, then the solution using his current
> Characterset and Codepage is to use the codepoint x55
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 26/09/2017 20:50, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > On 09/26/2017 11:08 AM, Chris Bowditch (JIRA) wrote:
> >>
> >>      [
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2741?page=com.
> atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16180912#comment-16180912
> >> ]
> >>
> >> Chris Bowditch commented on FOP-2741:
> >> -------------------------------------
> >>
> >> The solution is to insert code point x55 into the XSL-FO, e.g.
> >
> > (Taking the discussion out of JIRA...)
> >
> > I disagree with this pretty vigorously.
> >
> > The numeric character references in XML are *ALWAYS* to Unicode.
> > 3 is an exclamation point; U is a capital Latin U.  The fact
> > that AFP has a different encoding is a problem for the output system
> > to handle, not for the user to deal with.  Your proposed solution
> > would mean different input FO-XML for different outputs, which is
> > against the whole point of XSL.
> >
> > ~Chris
>
>
>

Reply via email to