On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Chris Bowditch <[email protected]>wrote:
> Does FontBox have support for the tables needed by the ComplexScripts code > added to the TTFReader classes? > No. Clearly that would have to be added to fontbox to work. However, I'm thinking more about a long term plan for font handling, which may (or may not) make fontbox worth considering, in which case, the CS features would need to be added to it and the AWT dependencies removed or segregated. If we had more than one joint committer (just JM is now), then it would be possible to do this work more readily. The real question for me is whether we want to (1) continue having a large and increasingly unwieldy font subsystem in FOP, (2) move that into XGC (to share with Batik), or (3) improve Fontbox to serve both Fop/Batik. If the level of effort of (2) and (3) is similar, then I would suggest taking (3). I could readily move the CS code into FB I'm certain.
