Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 02.12.2008 18:40:21 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
FWIW, I am happy with the glyph substitution the way Jeremias has
implemented it.
Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Plus, while it makes sense to replace
minus-sign with hyphen-minus when minus-sign is not available, the other
way around is not acceptable. Anyway, since in practice this will
probably never happen, the whole thing can probably be simplified.
Not acceptable under whose authority? You're stating your opinion.
Hey, this is just a mechanism that tries to get a reasonable result if a
glyph in a font is missing. If someone is not happy with the result,
he's free to use a different font.
This is exactly the use case I'm concerned about. Font designers doing
things the user doesn't expect. I think it would be unfortunate if FOP
blindly followed a spec in this case at the detriment of the user. It's
not easy to get a Font changed.
Thanks,
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
