W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Minutes, 26 September 2009 SVG WG F2F - Day 1

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:25:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4610681645.20090928212525@w3.org>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>, anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au, <www-svg@w3.org>, <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Monday, September 28, 2009, 2:59:53 PM, Robert wrote:

ROC> Does SVG intend to alter the behaviour of the CSS font matching
ROC> algorithm when an SVG Font with 'missing-glyph' is specified in
ROC> 'font-family'?


And specifically, its not 'a match'. Which is why it has a different element name, to indicate that its not a regular glyph.

It just provides a glyph that could be used for characters that are not covered. However, other fonts in the font-family list, or the generic font family, or a system fallback font, might have coverage. And even if they do not, the actual 'missing glyph' might be drawn from the svg font, or drawn from any other font n the list (commonly, the last one on the list).

ROC>  I can't find anything in the spec to confirm this. If so, in what manner?

Did you find anything which implies that SVG alters the font matching algorithm?

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 19:25:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:18 UTC