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

Re: Full 1.1 Test Suite Status Updated

From: ddailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:06:48 -0500
Message-ID: <8F41D089882441CCBD15ADB165A0EBA2@disxgdg31szkx7>
To: "Dirk Schulze" <vbs85@gmx.de>, "Patrick Dengler" <patd@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Anthony Grasso" <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>, <www-svg@w3.org>
The mission of the WOFF working group  "is to develop specifications that 
allow the interoperable deployment of downloadable fonts on the Web."

That, it seems to me, does not address at all, fonts that are definable 
client-side. In order to make a font-design engine that runs client side, 
one pretty much needs SVG fonts it seems to me. WOFF should, thus, be in 
addition to rather than instead of SVG fonts by the very limitations imposed 
by the word "downloadable" in its charter.

Yes?
David

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dirk Schulze" <vbs85@gmx.de>
To: "Patrick Dengler" <patd@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Anthony Grasso" <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>; <www-svg@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Full 1.1 Test Suite Status Updated


Hi,
> Still includes SVG fonts and SMIL. An animate version was created; but 
> this still includes SVGFonts which is not germane to the test : Request, 
> remove SVG Font or replace with WOFF; remove SMIL
> interact-pevents-04-t.svg
>
> Still includes SVG fonts which is not germane to the test : Request, 
> remove SVG Font or replace with WOFF (perhaps Chris is just still 
> updating, or perhaps I missed a few from before)
WOFF is not requirement for SVG 1.1, while SVGFonts is. Or it is at least 
still a part of SVG1.1. I wouldn't replace SVG Fonts with WOFF, but maybe we 
can add them as well. So we have different font types as fallback and have a 
better base of comparison between SVG viewers.

Cheers,
Dirk
Received on Monday, 15 November 2010 22:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:46 GMT