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

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

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:38:25 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <bg0v7g$3v0$1@main.gmane.org>

"Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org> wrote in message
> On Sun 27 Jul 2003, Jim Ley wrote:
> > Missing-glyph is a required child of the font element, it seems odd, in
> > 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.

It's hassle for me, I'm trying to bring in a document that is smaller than
the GIF equivalent it's replacing, and currently it's a struggle, 2 less
missing-glyph elements would be a big help. Requiring it achieves nothing
(since it would just use the missing-glyph character from the next font if
any glyph isn't found)
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2003 12:40:23 UTC

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