Would it be useful to transition to use of the fontbox subsystem of the pdfbox project?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Peter Hancock <[email protected]>wrote: > The URI resolution work that Mehdi and myself recently work on [1] was one > of many requirements for running FOP in a environments with restricted > access to the filesystem (think The Cloud). Another requirement relates to > the accessing of Fonts: When FOP handles XSL-FO documents with embedded > SVG containing text, it delegates the layout and rendering job to Batik. > Batik will require font metrics that are associated with the text and > currently uses the AWT library to load the JDK fonts that are OS fonts. > This process is problematic for a few reasons: One is presented to us > when we wish to run FOP in a so-called multi-tenant environment; In this > scenario, fonts that are liscensed on a per-tenant basis must have their > availiability accordingly restricted accordingingly. How can this be > enforced when fonts are resolved at the JVM level? > > I am interested in feedback from the community to find out what other > problems are attributed to the current Font handling processes in FOP and > Batik, and what the solutions to these may look like. Would sharing code > between FOP and Batik help to unify the handling of fonts. FOP could > configure the font library so that Batik loads fonts accordingly. This was > proposed at the time of XML Graphics Commons' inception [2]. > > I am aware that Font handling has been discussed on XG mailing lists and > attempts made to extract a font library from FOP [3]. > > Thanks, > > Peter > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/4mocrzwpzaaudwz2 > > [2] http://markmail.org/message/fbck5tolipkkfw5u > > [3] > > http://apache-fop.1065347.n5.nabble.com/Foray-s-font-subsystem-for-Fop-tp18467.html >
