Jonathan,
Obviously, FOP's strongest supporters over the past years do not
require this new functionality. FOP needs the additional support of
new stakeholders of this new functionality. Could your teams test it
on their documents and report their findings to the fop-user email
list?
Simon Peppin
On 19/10/2011 19:32, Simon Pepping wrote:
Hi Simon,
I think you misunderstood my mail. I don't want to stop the merge. I
simply thought it was an appropriate time to discuss some concerns that
Vincent and Peter had identified. You are preaching to the converted
about the need for supporting C
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687
--- Comment #44 from Glenn Adams 2011-10-20 13:03:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> Created attachment 27822 [details]
> list of Gujarati words and sentences
>
> As per my exchange with Glenn, I've attached a UTF-8 encoded file that
The Complex Scripts feature is obviously a great enhancement and we
would all love to have it implemented in FOP. However, that should not
come at the expense of maintainability and the implementation of other
new features.
When I look at the code in the Temp_ComplexScripts branch, I have
serious
This is a tough one.
The need for complex script support in FOP is likely high on the wish
list of any global supporter of FOP and it is certainly in the
interest of the project to support. The amount of work that Glenn has
done is considerable: the volume of code, the test coverage and the
obviou
Hi Simon,
I've contacted my management and asked what our teams can do to help test. I
report to our development not to our quality departments, and I can't speak for
our quality departments. I've contacted our international teams about what
they can do to help test.
The bottom-line to our t
