Apache Batik 1.7 vs. Private Fork?

[Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>]

Hi,

Any thoughts about upgrading to the latest Batik and breaking a project specific fork?

Regards,
Dave

Re: Apache Batik 1.7 vs. Private Fork?

[Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>]

Interesting! Similar issues may exist in Apache PDFBox as well.

Sent from my iPhone

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

> 
> 
> 
> On 2/1/13 6:54 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@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
> 

Re: Apache Batik 1.7 vs. Private Fork?

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 2/1/13 6:54 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@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