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

Re: SVG Fonts [...]

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:06:17 -0700
Message-ID: <4C0978D9.7030509@jumis.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, www-svg@w3.org
On 6/4/2010 1:30 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:
> ROC>  It would be easy to create a very simple tool to convert SVG
> ROC>  glyph outlines into an Opentype font
>
> Again, it would be nice to see this statement backed up. SVG glyph outlines can contain arbitrary path commands, be self-intersecting, can have overlap, and do not require control points placed at extrema. TrueType glyph outlines can only use a single type of Bezier curve, cannot self intersect or overlap, and are constrained to have control points at specific places.
>
> So a conversion does not seem straightforward.
>    
We're discussing OpenType, which does have cubic Bezier curves.
I doubt there are many cases where SVG to WOFF conversion will take place.

> Personally it seems clear that both OpenType (as WOFF) and SVG Fonts have a place in SVG, serving different needs.
>    
I agree with you.

> OpenType also does not cover all the world's scripts, of course. I did present a paper at a Unicode conference on what would be neeed to extend SVG Fonts with Graphite, which would give more script coverage than OpenType. But again, i don't think that is the way to go at this point.
>    
It seems an appropriate direction for an SVG Fonts working-group.
Graphite for 2015?

> ROC>  so then we're talking about yet another kind of SVG Fonts:
> ROC>  a) SVG 1.2 Tiny Fonts
> ROC>   b) SVG 1.1 Full Fonts
> ROC>  c) SVG ... Opentype-Compatible Fonts
>
> ROC>  (I'm not sure if (c) and (a) are the same or not; it sounded
> ROC>  like "overlaps" are possible in (a) but not (c)?)
>
> Correct, among other restrictions.
>
> a) is currently well supported by authoring tools and by implementations on mobile; inconsistently supported by implementations on the desktop.
>
> b) is the more interesting case, because it allows things that OpenType does not - scriptable fonts, animated fonts, video fonts, multicoloured fonts, and so forth.
>    
SVG Full Fonts is an interesting spec, but I think perhaps, if you're 
going to go that distance,
you may as well extend it with Graphite.

As you point out Chris, SVG Tiny Fonts are well-supported, and as ROC 
has pointed out,
implementing them would be rather trivial within desktop browsers.

Were Mozilla interested in implementing SVG 1.2 Tiny fonts, and allowing 
outline extraction for WOFF,
I'd be more than satisfied. And I wouldn't mind SVG Fonts becoming its 
own standard, in the way that
Canvas 2D Context was jettisoned from the HTML 5 spec.

I'd like to see an SVG Fonts working group, producing two 
recommendations: SVG Fonts Baseline and SVG Fonts Advanced,
the former simply recommending SVG 1.2 Tiny Fonts, and the latter a 
continuing effort to introduce work from the SIL.

Mozilla, and other vendors have a very attainable [though optional] 
standard,
Those of us with strong interests in linguistics can proceed on a spec 
to be introduced in the more distant future.
We could even start looking at InkML.


-Charles
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 22:33:49 GMT

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