W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Identical rendering? [was Re: SVG 1.2 General feedback]

From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:45:42 +0100
Message-ID: <3DDB83F6.9040800@pinkjuice.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org
CC: Vadim Plessky <plessky@cnt.ru>

Vadim Plessky wrote:

> On Tuesday 19 November 2002 3:13 pm, Tobias Reif wrote:
> |  Vadim Plessky wrote:
> |  > First I need to see SVG fonts,
> |
> |  You can get lots of free TTF fonts, then convert them to SVG Font via
> |  Batik. It's a lot of fun.
> In a short:  I stopped using TTF fonts about year ago, and actively promote 
> usage of PostScript Type1 (or Type2/CFF) fonts.

Well yes, you would use SVG Font, not TTF.

> But thanks for this reference, may be one day I would install Batik and try 
> this.
> Does it convert TrueType hints (opcodes) to SVG, too?

Someone else might be able to answer this; you can also check the spec.

> I still should to learn *why* you may want to have filters or animations 
> inside *font*.

Fancy splash screens, film credits over SMIL flicks etc etc. The idea is 
not to use animated etc glyphs for regular text, but to make fancy 
logos, designs, styles (thing graffiti) etc accessible, and platform 

> "Right tool for the right task", IMO.

Exactly. No one said you should use these possibilities at all, or that 
you should use them where they are not appropriate.

> |  > For example, it seems that Adobe SVG plugin (Windows) renders fonts on
> |  > its own, ignoring Windows font rasterizer.
> |  > While such approach may be ok for Adobe's graphics apps (PhotoShop,
> |  > Illustrator), text at small sizes (8pt-12pt) in unreadable in such case
> |
> |  Use the renderung related properties to make small text readable.
> Do you mean, "hints"?

Why don't you simply play with the text rendering properties in SVG to 
solve your problem?


Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 07:45:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:54 UTC