W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

A couple of SVG font questions

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:55:56 +1000
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090430015556.GC14583@arc.mcc.id.au>
Hi.

In SVG 1.1, the content model of the <font-face> element is this:

  * A <font-face> has at most one <font-face-src> and at most one
    <definition-src> element.

  * A <font-face-src> has one or more { <font-face-uri> or
    <font-face-name> element }s.

In SVG Tiny 1.2, the content model of the <font-face> element is this:

  * A <font-face> has zero or more <font-face-src> children.

  * A <font-face-src> has zero or more <font-face-uri> children.


I can understand why <definition-src> was dropped from 1.2T; the
‘definition-src’ descriptor in CSS 2 is exceptionally underdefined and
there are no tests for it in the SVG 1.1 test suite.  Additionally, it
no longer exists in css3-fonts (which is where the @font-face
functionality has moved to).  Can we drop it from 1.1?


Why was <font-face-name> dropped from 1.2T?  It seems to correspond
directly to a local() entry in the @font-face ‘src’ descriptor.  This
still exists in css3-fonts.


It doesn’t seem to make sense to have zero <font-face-uri> children of a
<font-face-src> in 1.2T.  Should we have an erratum for the schema to
require one-or-more?


Thanks,

Cameron

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 01:56:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 April 2009 01:56:35 GMT