Vincent Hennebert wrote: > >>>Integrating FOrayFont in the pre-release would be great... > >> > >>Quite unrealistic as it stands now, sorry. > > > > That is your (FOP's) decision, but it makes no sense to me. You are > > willing to go backwards in almost any other area, but are > unwilling to > > *not* go forwards with PostScript font embedding? Even when > it is doable? > > > > Still, I appreciate knowing. I'll shift my focus back to getting my > > FOray release out the door. > > Victor, from a non-native speaker POV you seem to be a bit > overreacting here. I have the feeling that I have misled you > because of my bad understanding of the problem. I'm sorry if > this is the case. > Jeremias has a better vision of the situation than me, and I > quite agree with him that the integration won't be ready for > the pre-release. This does not mean that it will never be > done. And after all, all the better: we will have more time > to discuss about a clean API.
You didn't mislead me at all, nor did you do anything else wrong. On the contrary, I appreciate your efforts greatly. WRT me overreacting, perhaps I have been misunderstood. The font system works well enough for what FOray needs ATM, but there are a lot of other things that don't. I have rearranged my priorities to try to make sure that I am not a bottleneck on any of this for FOP. I guess this made it higher on my priority list than it was on FOP's, which is pretty stupid. So, having now a better understanding of where everyone else's priorities are, I am glad for the opportunity to adjust mine back to where they really ought to be anyway: FOray. > P.S.: that said, the PDFRenderer should now work fine with > the new font system; converting the SVG library should be > pretty easy; this basically works for the AWT viewer. Nothing > perfect, but... ;-) That is good news, and I think you should be applauded for your efforts here. Victor Mote
