Well, I'm not that familiar with FontBox. I've mostly worked with PDFBox.
Jeremias Maerki On 13.11.2012 12:30:36 Mehdi Houshmand wrote: > As far as a I'm aware, Fontbox doesn't read a lot of the tables necessary > for CS. I don't know PDFBox handles arabic scripts, but I think much of > that would be handled by AWT if at all. I'm not 100% on this, Jeremias > might know more. > > Either way, we're going to have to make substantial changes to FOP (not > necessarily the layout, that shouldn't be affected too much, but the font > handling), but if the question is "which is the best starting point for the > project Fontbox or our font classes?", I think that would need some > investigation. Fontbox is certainly better structured than our classes, but > it too needs some TLC. The point being, Fontbox uses AWT for interpreting > the drawing commands, which we don't want, but we don't do that anyways... > So Fontbox is still a valid fit, since as far as we're concerned, either we > nor Fontbox do that appropriately (hope that makes sense). > > I think taking a look at Fontbox is certainly helpful, if only so that you > get a better understanding for what PDFBox asks of fonts i.e. their glyph > drawing data, metrics etc. > > Mehdi > > > On 13 November 2012 10:49, Chris Bowditch <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 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<http://markmail.org/message/jo56auecjd6skeci> > >> [2] > >> http://markmail.org/message/**j3tbybb6s62u7v72<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<http://markmail.org/message/4mocrzwpzaaudwz2> > >>>> > >>>> [2] > >>>> http://markmail.org/message/**fbck5tolipkkfw5u<http://markmail.org/message/fbck5tolipkkfw5u> > >>>> > >>>> [3] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://apache-fop.1065347.n5.**nabble.com/Foray-s-font-** > >>> subsystem-for-Fop-tp18467.html<http://apache-fop.1065347.n5.nabble.com/Foray-s-font-subsystem-for-Fop-tp18467.html> > >>> > >> > > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > general-unsubscribe@**xmlgraphics.apache.org<[email protected]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > general-help@xmlgraphics.**apache.org<[email protected]> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
