Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 02.12.2008 13:51:06 Chris Bowditch wrote:
<snip/>
I think making the whole SVG Text process more transparent would
really help as it seems quite mystical. I know you made some further
notes on this process yesterday, but some more details about Font
substitution and glyph relations would be useful.
That stuff is not mystical, just complicated because by now we have so
much functionality and support so many different output formats which
all have slightly different facilities. Furthermore, when I refactored
the SVG/PDF text painting I didn't have enough time to improve Batik's
font support so we it would be possible to plug FOP's font support into
Batik. Add to that the fact that, for example, PostScript and AFP still
have inferior text handling for SVG graphics which causes a higher
percentage of SVG text to be painted as shapes.
I'm not sure how to make the documentation much clearer. Font
substitution itself is well documented. I'm hesitant to go in the
details of glyph relations because the best approach would be to
document all the substitutions we make and if that data is not generated
from the same source as the functionality in the code we always risk
losing synchronization. And that's a lot of work for little gain.
You mentioned that Dialog gets translated to Times, why that happens is
not clear to me. If there are a set of hard coded Font substitutions
then they should be documented. If it's something the AWT classes do
then a sentence that says Fonts may be substituted as per rules
documented in X would be helpful.
You misunderstood me when I said to document glyph substitutions. I was
thinking more along the lines of a sentence that said "glyphs are
subject to substitution as per the Unicode standard Annex 14 <link/>" or
similar.
Thanks,
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
