Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00099912F for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 77105 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2012 17:42:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 77069 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2012 17:42:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 77058 invoked by uid 99); 28 Mar 2012 17:42:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:42:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of omuppi1@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.47] (HELO mail-bk0-f47.google.com) (209.85.214.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:42:12 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id jg15so1288921bkc.6 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:41:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=3R4dl/eb31rfU59pj4fUIe4EpFPUOp0khiWrS4b/qS8=; b=JY5DxJGui9UHxoTwzxuUsLu1+RXnKvvpxLj0WBRqj/C7zB8z5ZKHR3CJRi6QL2RB9T xo4eDpYsmNwdEkVGydNhZJWrKMy7WNNLpQvgC/rPi8zRHFyNxx3qaJcQc4sv3F31P+vZ UAWvybKPP6Z8o75UPymWu6boraoGhP0iiUFFCINL0NnglAedLJ3PfyQ4wbP3+t24XTsZ xjk/VPfrfHBRaV7UUOEfrPEiCkMWl3eVt9JKvxUUGh6Thz2Amthspt7N6KK1f47NymI2 rytv89zmU0w5RoaSuFT4bqdG2O7HJ7epcsQcT3aFrwoJLKWDUjJmd4mX0XjEPRVPczYl lA6Q== Received: by 10.152.103.12 with SMTP id fs12mr23448050lab.47.1332956512293; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:41:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: omuppi1@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.21.234 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:41:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Om Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:41:21 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QyjIM3JVMItI6E-4U0ALlvg2-tc Message-ID: Subject: Re: CFF Font Embedding (was Re: Here Comes MXMLC!) To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0407129d6a93df04bc511fd9 --f46d0407129d6a93df04bc511fd9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > On 3/28/12 5:31 AM, "olegsivokon@gmail.com" wrote: > > > Yes Martin, I understood the legal problem. I was just wondering what is > > particular about the code that it cannot be replaced by other (modified) > > font managers. As you probably know, there are 4 managers currently in > SDK > > which can encode fonts using somewhat different techniques, but only one > > can encode them in a way they fit for the use with the FTE classes. This > > is, I assume, the one Alex is talking about. So my question was rather: > > > > what if we take on of the existing managers and modify it so it will > > generate DefineFont4 tags - how much of an effort will it require? Or > maybe > > the technology itself is patented (I doubt this very much... but you > never > > know)? > > > I'm still trying to make sure I understand both the technical and legal > issues. I see specs for CFF and DefineFont4, but there are rumors that the > conversion is currently done via proprietary algorithms. If we (Apache > Flex) just write our own, there may be a quality issue. > > Does Falcon come with support for CFF Fonts? When it is open-sourced, will it be gimped in the same way when it comes to fonts? --f46d0407129d6a93df04bc511fd9--