xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>
Subject Fwd: FOP and non-BMP characters
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:28:53 GMT
Hi Saašha,

Frankly, the priority marked in the bug report doesn't matter at all. What
matters is whether someone is willing to work on it, and when they will be
able to do so. I am willing to work on this issue, but I have to put the
work after the current work I am doing on the ComplexScripts branch, which I
am trying to bring to a point to do a merge into trunk within the next month
or two. So unless you or someone else is willing to address this in the mean
time, you'll have to be patient.

G.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Saašha Metsärantala <saasha@acc.umu.se>
Date: Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:17 AM
Subject: FOP and non-BMP characters
To: glenn@skynav.com


Hello Glenn!

Thanks for your work with FOP! It is really, REALLY appreciated!

I found your answer at
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-**Apache-FOP-XML-to-PDF-problem-**
with-CJK-Unified-Ideographs-**Extension-B-character-**p32492091.html<http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Apache-FOP-XML-to-PDF-problem-with-CJK-Unified-Ideographs-Extension-B-character-p32492091.html>and
also your bug report at
https://issues.apache.org/**bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51843<https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51843>

I'm using several non-BMP alphabets and will appreciate the day when FOP
manages to handle characters outside the BMP! I'm also using unicode's
Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols (as of today U+1D400 - U+1D7FF but these
will probably soon be extended in a future version of Unicode). Copying the
glyphs from my own existing fonts into the within-BMP PUA and saving them as
"new" provisory BMP fonts is a bit laborious and entangled, but it is the
only work-around I know of to create output files showing the right glyphs.
But, even if the right glyphs are shown, the characters are not properly
encoded. Furthermore, the within-BMP PUA is rather small and can not
accomodate all these glyphs within only one font ... Such work-arounds
remind me of the pre-Unicode era with glyphs inconsistently encoded in
several 8-bits fonts. The move is only from 8 to 16 bits, but the problem is
the same.

With these facts in mind, I really wonder about why the bug has:

Importance: P2 normal

I wonder why not consider a "highest importance bug" the fact that most of
the characters defined by Unicode are NOT straightforwardly available in
FOP.

Thanks for your really useful contributions!

Saašha,

Mime
View raw message