On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]>wrote:
> I don't think these changes constitute substantive changes. They do not > add new functionality or otherwise create a significant risk for > instability. They are merely bugfixes. The major motivation for fixing > these IMO is in making everyone's life easier: Users will download FOP > 1.1 and run into font auto-detection problems and others will have to > help them. > It's a matter of degree. It is substantive in the sense that it is a code change [1]. It is also true that it is a very trivial change, and one that I'm completely fine with making at this stage. Is this change sufficient to address your concerns about the usability of 1.1? Do you also believe that a reversion to a change on Glyphs.MAC_GLYPH_NAMES is necessary? If so, could you provide a minimal patch that makes what you believe is needed? If others do not object, then I could apply [1] and this additional patch and upload a new set of images. [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fonts/truetype/TTFFile.java?r1=1356456&r2=1356455&pathrev=1356456
