W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svgopentype@w3.org > November 2011

Re: FW: [OpenType] Update on color/animation in OT via SVG; new W3C Community Group

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 23:01:07 +1100
Message-ID: <4ED0D503.90101@mcc.id.au>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
CC: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org>
Cameron McCormack:
>> Actually I'm not sure I like the idea of using specially formed IDs
>> to indicate glyph IDs, since it takes away from the space of names
>> that is currently entirely within the author's domain.  Can we
>> introduce a new attribute here instead?  Or maybe repurpose
>> glyphName="" to be available on every renderable element?

Vladimir Levantovsky:
> I believe it would be a benefit to treat SVG document in OT as a
> standalone resource, and therefore, it needs to be compliant with XML
> spec. I think it can be easily done by introducing a new mapping
> table by which a glyphID is linked to an SVG element ID (I would
> rather keep element IDs as generic as possible).

Yeah, having a separate mapping table would also work.  I don't know if
it is any better or worse than putting the glyph indices into the SVG
document itself somehow.

> We also need to allow SVG documents to specify different content for
> animated / static glyphs. Considering the first frame of animated
> glyph as its static form may not always work as intended, e.g. if a
> glyph consists of multiple contours that are "assembled" together as
> a result of animation.

It is possible to construct the SVG so that it has a desired static
appearance pretty easily.  In extreme cases, you would write something like:

   <g glyphID="123">
     <g>
       <set attributeName="display" to="none"/>
       <path d="..."/>
       ... static glyph content ...
     </g>
     <g display="none">
       <set attributeName="display" to="inline"/>
       <path d="..."/>
       ... animated glyph content ...
     </g>
   </g>

In static cases, since the animations don't run at all, the first <g>
child would render and the second would not.

I don't think there is a need to explicitly have separate static and
animated glyphs within the document.
Received on Saturday, 26 November 2011 12:01:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 26 November 2011 12:01:52 GMT