W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2010

Re: SVG Fonts [...]

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:50:09 +1200
Message-ID: <AANLkTilP-30wl0RLZT2qZc3KlqefUXpJLZwPt85uwJox@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
2010/6/3 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

> I think, these are pretty different use cases, to provide a font
> for reading a larger amount of text or to provide some specific glyphs
> within
> the same document for reasons like corporate design, advertisement,
> design etc.
>

For the latter use-case, why not just insert the graphic inline or use <use>
to include the graphic? If you want the text available for searching or
accessibility, it'd be trivial to extend SVG so you can associate Unicode
text with particular graphic objects. Something like
<g>
  <textContent>Mozilla</textContent>
  ... Mozilla wordmark here ...
</g>
That's far easier to implement than full SVG 1.1 Fonts. In fact, viewers
need not implement anything at all. It's more flexible since you can include
absolutely anything in the graphic content. It's probably also easier to
author in most cases; the author just designs the graphic in-place, and then
annotates it with the underlying text. With SVG Fonts the author has to
design the graphic, then break it up into individual glyphs and move them
out into a font.

IMHO a "font" only makes sense if you're going to combine character glyphs
in more than one way. Otherwise it's just an inconvenient way to reference
images.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 10:50:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:45 GMT