> As I see it, there are going to be two types of users of the OT-SVG > feature: > > 1. Who don't really care about which library will be used to render > OT-SVG glyphs. > 2. Who are interested in plugging some specific library.
Exactly. > For 2, yes, there is the burden of writing the hooks and it is an > intensive task. But that's the cost of plugging in other libraries. > For popular libraries like `resvg', `librsvg' and `svgnative' I am > going to write the hooks myself (I already have, just need to update > them), and the users can use those. Ideally, your `port' stuff should become part of those SVG libraries. On the other hand, the maintainers might argue similarly as I do, namely that it is not the job of the SVG libraries to take care of other libraries... So: I can imagine to put your non-default ports into a separate git repository (perhaps under https://github.com/freetype); developers then simply copy the necessary files into their projects. > With your Add/Remove module idea, there will be a similar burden, > the only difference would be, we would have covered that burden > ourselves for the popular libraries. Exactly! For this reason I don't want this approach. > About the documentation, yes, I am working on it. Thanks! Werner _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
