Chris Lilley: > There is an ambiguity in the 1.1 SE spec, which says > http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/fonts.html#GlyphElement > > The graphics that make up the ‘glyph’ can be either a single path > data specification within the ‘d’ attribute or arbitrary SVG as > content within the ‘glyph’. > > (not the "either" but also says > > If the ‘glyph’ has both a ‘d’ attribute and child elements, the ‘d’ > attribute is rendered first, and then the child elements. > > I believe that some implementations ignore child elements if there > is a d attribute. (This ambiguity is the subject of a current errata > item). I couldn’t find the erratum that mentions this ambiguity. URL? > Suggested fix: > > The graphics that make up the ‘glyph’ can be a single path data > specification within the ‘d’ attribute, arbitrary SVG as child > content within the ‘glyph’, or both. > > If we agree, I will update the SE text. What’s the argument for rendering both rather than one of them? Is that what the erratum says? > Also, child elements of glyph are untested in the test suite. Doug and > I discussed this on the phone earlier and came up with several things > that should be tested. I plan to ad some to the test suite over the > next week or two and will add them into the wiki as they are done. Sounds good! -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 01:46:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 September 2009 01:46:32 GMT