W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2011

Re: SVG Fonts inside of OpenType fonts? [Cross-post from www-font@w3.org]

From: Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:58:54 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimXwR3LhhcgFp99mUWRT1uEp=1qLf-_eqdAKY8V4VzMew@mail.gmail.com>
To: list.adam@twardoch.com
Cc: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, www-svg@w3.org, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, OpenType List <opentype-migration-list@indx.co.uk>
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Adam Twardoch (List)
<list.adam@twardoch.com> wrote:
> Obviously, SVG Fonts have some good and interesting concepts. One of
> their advantages is that they can -- at least in theory -- freely
> combine all aspects of SVG: multi-colored, multi-layered vector
> graphics, and bitmaps.
> However, SVG Fonts also have some serious drawbacks: while the glyph
> definition using SVG is a great concept, all the other aspects of SVG
> Fonts that make them work as a font, especially the character mapping,
> access to alternate glyphs, and the layout behavior, are somewhat
> under-defined and hard to implement. Therefore, it's rather unlikely
> that at any time, all OS and application vendors will agree on a good,
> full implementation of SVG Fonts.

While I certainly like many of the abilities that SVG fonts can bring,
I was under the impression that the problems with them run further
than what you list.  For example, you theoretically have the ability
to add an <html:video> to a <glyph> (loading the data from a data:
url, if necessary).  How does this work?

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 17:59:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:47 UTC