Hi Max, I apologize for my not so kind words.
I'm on the way to refactor the TTFFile part and hopefully add CFF support. I will follow your suggestions and issue my patch. Best Regards Alex - e-mail: [email protected] web: www.alexanderkiel.net On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 17:28 +0200, Max Berger wrote: > Alex, > > please note that the FOP code has been developed by multiple volunteers > over the last ten years. As such, it does not always follow one clear > path of design. > > That said, refactoring the FOP code for easier reading / maintainability > is definitely wanted! The proper steps would be: > > - ensure that there are junit tests for the existing functionality. If > not, add them. > > - ensure all junit tests run on your machine > > - refactor away, keeping in mind fop's conventions: > http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/conventions.html > Please note that FOP is currently still on Java 1.4. > > - ensure all junit tests still pass > > - create a bug report with [patch] in the subject line and attach your > patch. > > Max > > Alexander Kiel schrieb: > > Hi Jeremias, > > > > ok I think the first step would be to add CFF support into > > org.apache.fop.fonts.truetype.TTFFile or to split TTFFile into > > TrueTypeFile and OpenTypeFile and add CFF support only to OpenTypeFile. > > > > In the last hour I waded through TTFReader, TTFFile, TTFDirTabEntry and > > the OpenType Spec [1]. What about refactoring this code mess as a whole? > > I mean seriously, does all of the FOP code looks like this one? > > > > > > Best Regards > > Alex > > > > > > [1]: <http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/otff.htm> > > > > - > > e-mail: [email protected] > > web: www.alexanderkiel.net > > > > > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:48 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > >> Hi Alex, > >> > >> second good news today. I guess we need to define what should be covered > >> by "Open Type". One important aspect is certainly CFF support (which > >> I've just mentioned to Jonathan a few minutes ago). Another aspect is > >> what Bertrand Delacrétaz started to look into: ligatures, character > >> combination and such. CFF should be relatively easy to implement. > >> Ligature support is going to be much harder as this will have effects > >> into the layout engine. > >> > >> OpenType fonts that have TrueType glyphs and don't require the advanced > >> typographical stuff are already supported today, but many OTF fonts have > >> CFF glyph data. So that would be the first priority IMO. > >> > >> On 15.09.2009 09:23:39 Alexander Kiel wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm new to the fop-dev list but use FOP for some years already. > >>> > >>> Recently I tried to use OpenType fonts. As documented FOP doesn't > >>> support OpenType fonts yet. > >>> > >>> The last and only discussion I could found on fop-dev is from 2006 [1]. > >>> Looking into the trunk, there is not really anything done with respect > >>> to OpenType. So what is the state of OpenType support in 2009? > >>> > >>> Sure I could possibly help implementing it. > >>> > >>> Best Regards > >>> Alex > >>> > >>> > >>> [1]: > >>> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04892.html> > >>> > >>> - > >>> e-mail: [email protected] > >>> web: www.alexanderkiel.net > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> Jeremias Maerki > >> > >> > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
