- From: Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:59:42 -0500
- To: Brian Stell <bstell@google.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
- Cc: "w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 16:50 -0800, Brian Stell wrote: > Hi Vlad, > > Here are some thoughts (from memory) from my experience streaming CJK > fonts, YMMV. > [... lots of good stuff deleted..] A couple of thoughts - A JavaScript API to add a glyph to a font on the fly might be interesting. There may be security implications (e.g. you could make "buy" look like "dog"). A JS callback for when an undefined glyph is requested might make this simpler, too. EXI (i've suggested they start calling it NoParse, as it's a compressed stream of parse events) is likely a more efficient way to transmit the font data, although not if you have to reassemble the stream into a actual font - it'd be much more efficient in a browser-native implementation though. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Staff contact for Verifiable Claims WG, SVG WG, XQuery WG Web slave for http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Friday, 17 November 2017 04:59:55 UTC