On Thursday, June 30, 2011 7:00 PM Cameron McCormack wrote: > > Levantovsky, Vladimir: > > I am not sure what you mean by content. Would plain sequence of > > Unicode codepoints be considered a content? > > I think Alex means the content of the <glyph>, i.e. you can have > > <svg …> > <defs> > <path id="a" d="M …"/> > </defs> > <font> > <glyph> > <use xlink:href="#a"/> > … > </glyph> > </font> > </svg> > Okay, thanks. > > In cases where you have a complex script that isn’t supported directly > by SVG Font’s ligature and Arabic form features, then you can use > <altGlyph> to select an explicit glyph to use for a run of Unicode > characters. For example: > > <font> > <glyph id="complex"> > … > </glyph> > </font> > <text>The <altGlyph xlink:href="#complex">xyzzy</altGlyph> > glyph.</text> > But this would require: a) that you know the text content upfront; b) that you know the specific details of the language script in question and know how to shape it, and c) that all shaping/layout decisions can only be done at the authoring time. I can't see how this would work if your text is dynamic and comes from an outside source (e.g. via content aggregation or if it's simply a user comment on the post you made) formatted as a Unicode string. One way it would work is if you can use SVG glyph descriptions that are tied to OpenType glyph indices that would allow using the already existing shaping / layout engines, which is the answer to what Alex Danilo wrote: > I don't see that shoving SVG Fonts into an OpenType container does > anything more > than force us to restrict them in arbitrary ways and so seems a bit > silly. Thank you and regards, VladReceived on Friday, 1 July 2011 16:37:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 July 2011 16:37:48 GMT