- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 02:26:23 +0000
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- CC: "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org>
Hi Cameron, all, On Sunday, February 03, 2013 6:29 AM Cameron McCormack wrote: > > For animation, I continue to disagree that a separate animated glyph > definition is required. Our proposal states that when glyphs are > rendered in situations where animation is not possible, then the SVG > animation elements just do not apply. This is the same behaviour as if > you took an animated SVG document and opened it in an SVG user agent > that does not support animation (such as Internet Explorer). It is > simple enough to construct your content such that the static view is > what you would see if the animation elements were not present. > Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that this approach would require that both the static view of the glyph and the first frame of its animated version must be identical. I don't think it is a reasonable assumption and is also one that would be very limiting from a design perspective. Thank you, Vlad P.S. Are you going to discuss both proposals at the meeting (yours and the one that was previously brought up by Adobe)? I wish this had been announced in advance so that more interested parties could take part in the discussion.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 02:28:05 UTC