flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache Batik 1.7 vs. Private Fork?
Date Sat, 02 Feb 2013 05:51:54 GMT
Interesting! Similar issues may exist in Apache PDFBox as well.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 2/1/13 6:54 PM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Any thoughts about upgrading to the latest Batik and breaking a project
>> specific fork?
> Funny you should ask today.  I spent some time today looking at our
> dependency on the Adobe font libraries.  Until I did that, my answer would
> have been that Falcon doesn't use Batik so eventually we'd be done with
> Batik as a dependency.
> 
> However, Falcon doesn't yet have embedded font support, and we need to code
> up TTF-to-CFF Font handling somehow.  In my snooping around it appears that
> Batik doesn't handle CFF either but there are a few requests for it.  It
> looks like Batik does read TTF files so maybe the right thing to do is add
> CFF support to Batik and use that part of Batik.
> 
> Flex uses Batik for CSS as well, and our fork adds non-standard extensions
> to CSS.  I think we won't need that part of CSS so we won't have to worry
> about that part of Batik.
> 
> The TTF-to-CFF conversion looks painful and not-very-fun from my
> perspective.  Unless someone jumps in to do it, I guess I'll start trudging
> through it maybe one day a week or something like that.
> 
> I guess whoever does that should plug into the Batik lists to see if anyone
> in that community has CFF under way.
> 
> -- 
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
> 

Mime
View raw message