note that the "file:" URL scheme does not technically support relative URLs; however, that hasn't prevented some implementations from making non-standard extensions to provide such support
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Jeremias Maerki <d...@jeremias-maerki.ch>wrote: > I found a potential problem: The <directory> Tag in the configuration > takes file paths (not URIs, since we can't detect files on arbitrary > URIs). FontInfoConfigurator doesn't try to resolve relative directories > against the base or font base URI (see #addDirectories() and > FontFileFinder.find(String)). So people using relative paths could run > into a small problem here. Maybe we need to resolve against the base URI > if the base URI is a file-based URI. > > On 14.01.2011 14:04:03 Simon Pepping wrote: > > Done. Simon > > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:40:59PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:55:25AM +0000, Peter Hancock wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > When configuring the base directory using the fop.xconf relative urls > > > > are based on the working directory, and not the fop.xconf. > > > > This contradicts the URI specification as pointed out in > > > > http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Problem-with-custom-fonts-p10013042.html > > > > > > I hate it when applications show this bug. I was not aware that FOP > > > suffers from it. The problem must be solved as soon as possible. > > > > > > > Can anyone suggest a robust way of achieving this scenario, given the > > > > current limitations of FOP, or should I fix this bug? > > > > > > It would be wonderful if you can provide a fix. > > > > > > Simon > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > >
