xmlgraphics-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mehdi Houshmand <med1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fonts in XG
Date Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:36:53 GMT
Sorry I meant to add, that rather than us necessarily using Fontbox, it
might be useful, once the font library has been created, to let the PDFBox
guys know since what they're looking for is a subset of what we're going
for. Though again, they make heavy use of AWT to convert the Glyf data into
Graphics2D, but if this is intended to work with Batik, we'll want to do
the same.

Food for thought,

Mehdi


On 13 November 2012 10:33, Mehdi Houshmand <med1985@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> I looked at this a long time ago (there's probably an email floating
> around somewhere), but the fontbox library won't in itself be useful for
> us. It does a subset of what we're asking for a fonts library and as such
> is designed differently. It also makes heavy use of AWT, which is exactly
> what we want to not do, which will make it trouble some.
>
> That's not to say it's not at all useful to us, it might be good to look
> at it and look at how PDFBox uses it, in order to better form an API that
> would make a font library more extensible and more usable for others.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Mehdi
>
>
> On 13 November 2012 10:27, Peter Hancock <peter.hancock@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Quite possibly according to [1] and [2] and worth investigating.
>>
>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/jo56auecjd6skeci
>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/j3tbybb6s62u7v72
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 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 <peter.hancock@gmail.com
>> > >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
>> > >
>> > > [2] http://markmail.org/message/fbck5tolipkkfw5u
>> > >
>> > > [3]
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-fop.1065347.n5.nabble.com/Foray-s-font-subsystem-for-Fop-tp18467.html
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message