Agreed. From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> Reply-To: "robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>" <robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> Date: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:50 PM To: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au<mailto:nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>> Cc: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>> Subject: Re: Unified draft of SVG-in-OT Resent-From: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>> Resent-Date: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:51 PM On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au<mailto:nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>> wrote: I do have one question. The proposal notes that the font bounding box in the head table must be suitable for static renderings of the glyph. How is this possible considering features of the glyph may be set through parameters? e.g. the user may specify a stroke width of any size. Changing the stroke width would affect the ink bounding box but not the glyph bounding box used for layout. It's up to the content author to limit values of the stroke width parameter to those that make sense for the glyph shape. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w
Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 02:54:04 UTC