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

Re: text-ws-02-t and nbsp glyph

From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:37:52 +0100
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uo6h9epwgqiacl@gnorps.linkoping.osa>

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:08:58 +0100, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> On Friday, February 6, 2009, 5:59:48 PM, Erik wrote:
>
> ED> I wonder if the text-ws-02-t.svg[2] test is correct.
>
> ED> The testcase text-ws-02-t.svg[2] uses the SVGFreeSansASCII font,
> ED> which doesn't have a glyph for the nonbreaking space. This causes
> ED> a fontswitch in Opera, and the second line therefore looks different from the first line.
>
> Interesting that a fallback font is used not just for the needed character, but for all subsequent ones.

Another interesting detail may be the computed value of 'font-family' in this test.

> ED> Should an SVGFont claim to have the nonbreaking-space glyph even
> ED> though it doesn't if there is a space glyph?
>
> Where does it "claim" to have this glyph?

Like I wrote, it doesn't, the question was "should it [pretend to have an nbsp glyph]"?

> Unicode-range is not a claim of coverage. Its the inverse: its a claim of non-coverage of the space outside that range. (Which is useful, if the font does in fact have glyphs, but you don't want to use them, for example if they are ugly.)

What I meant was solely about the actual (nbsp) glyph, not about unicode-range.

Cheers
/Erik

-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 08:36:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 February 2009 08:36:37 GMT