Does FontBox have support for the tables needed by the ComplexScripts
code added to the TTFReader classes?
The scope of this work is already very large, I'm not in favour of
further enlarging the scope. The current objective is to move the Font
library to its own library so Batik can use it instead of AWT. We
believe a lot of changes may be needed to Batik. If we also switch to
FontBox at the same time we would need to rewrite large parts of FOP in
addition to Batik. Thus increasing the scope of this work substantially.
An alternative possibility that wouldn't dramatically increase the scope
of this work is to leave FOP alone and see if Batik can use FontBox? I
would accept that approach, but I don't think that is what you meant?
Thanks,
Chris
On 13/11/2012 10:27, Peter Hancock wrote:
Quite possibly according to [1] and [2] and worth investigating.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/jo56auecjd6skeci
[2] http://markmail.org/message/j3tbybb6s62u7v72
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
