On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Khaled Hosny <khaledho...@eglug.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 07:18:10PM +0200, Jiang Jiang wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Khaled Hosny <khaledho...@eglug.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:01:32AM +0200, Jiang Jiang wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Breitenlohner <p...@mppmu.mpg.de> >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Jiang Jiang wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Since Peter is not responding, .... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Hi Jiang Jiang, >> >> > >> >> > that was on purpose because I am not the maintainer and don't know too >> >> > much >> >> > abaout that program. All I did were purely technical things such as >> >> > identifying identical code in the two programs, code cleanup (C language >> >> > bugs and compiler warnings) and general TeX Live infrastructure. >> >> >> >> OK, sorry about that. So who is the maintainer of dvipdfm-x then? >> > >> > I partly do, and it happens that I was in the middle of some major >> > refactoring removing most of the different font loading paths between >> > dvipdfmx and xdvipdfmx (in preparation of their eventual merger) and >> > this of course is conflicting with your changes. I had to revert them >> > locally for now, and will need to figure out how to re-do it again since >> > the fc_face member of the various font structure is almost gone. >> >> There has to be a FT_Face somewhere, right? > > Probably not, at least unless absolutely required.
I'm not sure it's a good idea. I looked at your changes and I'd rather it to be the other way around, remove the legacy dvipdfm-x code and replace it with FreeType calls instead. At a glance I felt that FreeType code is way better maintained and in a much better shape than dvipdfm-x code, I can't remember how many times I see "FIXME" and "This should be fixed" in dvipdfm-x code base. Take CFF and CID font support for instance, I suspect that we will have to spent 10 times more effort to correct the current dvipdfm-x code while FreeType has high quality code (some contributed by Adobe themselves) ready for use. While unifying the dvipdfmx and xdvipdfmx is a goal worth pursuing I doubt it will actually bring a higher quality version to XeTeX users in the next release. - Jiang -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
