On Apr 12, 2004, at 5:55 AM, Peter B. West wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
If that is the case (a big if) might we not be better to move to a
more
generic form, with translation into each particular form of font
specification?
I can't tell. I don't see much benefit because the current system
already
on-the-fly font discovery: Specify a directory and FOP finds all the
compatible fonts in there without the need for manual font metrics
creation. So this is something else.
font aliases: Mapping Arial to Helvetica, for example. Mapping font
characteristics is somewhat hardcoded already into FOP, t
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
If that is the case (a big if) might we not be better to move to a more
generic form, with translation into each particular form of font
specification?
I can't tell. I don't see much benefit because the current system
already provides most of what FOP needs. A total rewrit
On 11.04.2004 01:55:48 Peter B. West wrote:
> In connection with our recent discussions concerning font handling, I
> looked at the contentious fontconfig system driven by Keith Packard.
> I have also, as I noted previously, looked briefly at the way fonts are
> defined in Java. Would I be cor
