I think Jeremias change is a step in the right direction, but I also appreciate the process.
Clay On 12/3/08, Chris Bowditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > >> On 02.12.2008 18:40:21 Vincent Hennebert wrote: > > FWIW, I am happy with the glyph substitution the way Jeremias has > implemented it. > >> >>>Hi Jeremias, >>> >>>Jeremias Maerki wrote: >>> >>>Plus, while it makes sense to replace >>>minus-sign with hyphen-minus when minus-sign is not available, the other >>>way around is not acceptable. Anyway, since in practice this will >>>probably never happen, the whole thing can probably be simplified. >> >> >> Not acceptable under whose authority? You're stating your opinion. >> >> Hey, this is just a mechanism that tries to get a reasonable result if a >> glyph in a font is missing. If someone is not happy with the result, >> he's free to use a different font. > > This is exactly the use case I'm concerned about. Font designers doing > things the user doesn't expect. I think it would be unfortunate if FOP > blindly followed a spec in this case at the detriment of the user. It's > not easy to get a Font changed. > > Thanks, > > Chris > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/ > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Regards, The Web Maestro -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - <http://ourlil.com/> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
