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 11:30:36 GMT
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 <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com>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 <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<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<general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.**apache.org<general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org>
>
>

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