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

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

From: Vadim Plessky <plessky@cnt.ru>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:54:19 +0300
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200211221954.19928.plessky@cnt.ru>

On Friday 22 November 2002 7:34 pm, Tobias Reif wrote:
|  Vadim Plessky wrote:
|  > On Thursday 21 November 2002 11:58 pm, Tobias Reif wrote:
|  > |  > Than talk to Adobe to switch their ASV from closed-source
|  > |  > implementation to FreeType.
|  > |  > And ask Batik guys to use FreeType, too.
|  > |
|  > |  How would that affect the spec?
|  >
|  > I guess *you* were speaking about rendering quality, no?
|  > And it was your proposal to add some changes to specs, defining
|  > rendering quality?
|  Yes, so FreeType is of no help.

So, is ASV of any help here? Do you have sources for it?
(or you don't consider this to be a problem?)

FreeType does its task - it renders text, and does this job very well.
Adobe's renderer(s) can't acomplish similiar results.

I have no experience with Batik but doubt it can beat MS's or Adobe's 
rendering, unless it uses FreeType.
Besides:  with several new rendering options added to FreeType-2.1.3, you can 
*tune* rendering to your appeal.
There are several rendering devices (in particular, TVs), which require *very 
different* kind of rendering from what we have in Windows, Linux or MacOS 
AFAIK SVG specification doesnt' have similiar rendering options at a moment.
I doubt though that Microsoft would like to share some pieces of their 
ClearType technology, or Apple would give up on some of their TrueType 
So, what you would like to acomplish with "identical rendering" goal?
Pls explain.

Best Regards,

Vadim Plessky
SVG Icons
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 12:05:00 UTC

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