Hi Glenn,
On 13/11/2012 15:29, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Chris Bowditch
<[email protected]>wrote:
Does FontBox have support for the tables needed by the ComplexScripts code
added to the TTFReader classes?
No. Clearly that would have to be added to fontbox to work. However, I'm
thinking more about a long term plan for font handling, which may (or may
not) make fontbox worth considering, in which case, the CS features would
need to be added to it and the AWT dependencies removed or segregated.
If we had more than one joint committer (just JM is now), then it would be
possible to do this work more readily. The real question for me is whether
we want to (1) continue having a large and increasingly unwieldy font
subsystem in FOP, (2) move that into XGC (to share with Batik), or (3)
improve Fontbox to serve both Fop/Batik.
I realize there is a disadvantage with maintaining multiple disparate
font libraries. The ideal would be combine them all into 1 library and
use that across PDFBox, FOP and Batik. We will certainly take a look at
fontbox, but everything I'm hearing so far leads me to believe it is a
massive job compared to option (2) above. If we look into that and are
confident that is not the case then I agree we can try to merge the 2
libraries and use the result in FOP and Batik.
If the level of effort of (2) and (3) is similar, then I would suggest
taking (3). I could readily move the CS code into FB I'm certain.
Peter is looking into the font requirements of Batik right now. After
doing that he will take a look at FontBox and we will discuss our
findings here.
Thanks,
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
