W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: SVG 1.0/1.1 missing-glyph required, why?

From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:35:05 +1000
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030727073505.GA32448@grorg.org>

On Sun 27 Jul 2003, Jim Ley wrote:

> Hi,
> Missing-glyph is a required child of the font element, it seems odd, in a
> self contained non-editable document, the only way a glyph could be
> not-found is author incompetence, why do we require it to be a child?  I
> don't see the value.

It encourages good use in the cases where the document is
editable or the author in incompetent, and provides little
hassle to the competent authors (even those that are producing
non-editable documents).  Whoosh! What a sentence.

You're right, it isn't strictly required in the case
you mention. Maybe the UA could have created a missing
glyph (rectangle/tofu) if it were missing (it always has
the font dimensions and default advance)?

Also it could be that it is just a simple mapping from a required
feature in popular font formats (OpenType, TrueType, PS1). This
is just a guess and probably wrong.

My feeling is that we don't really need to change
this unless there is a good reason.

Received on Sunday, 27 July 2003 03:35:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:56 UTC