W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Future plans for SVG Fonts and SVG (SMIL) Animation in browsers (Was: DOM4 not compatible with ACID3 tests)

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:46:41 -0700
Message-Id: <6AE4E6A1-66E7-4F1E-93E1-2DC6841C1173@jumis.com>
Cc: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "adrianba@microsoft.com" <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
As you're no longer blocking SVG Fonts in Mozilla, I'll post a note on the relevant bug reports.

-Charles



On Sep 20, 2011, at 9:39 PM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 04:34:24 +0200, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com> wrote:
> 
> 1) At the Mozilla Auckland F2F Roc pretty much accepted that the Tiny fonts
> as per [5] would likely be OK for Mozilla.
> 
> I think that's a fair summary. The SVG WG resolved at that F2F to make the
> SVG Tiny 1.2 fonts mandatory in SVG2.
> 
> Your summary is fairer :-). IIRC I simply gave up trying to block the WG from making SVG Tiny 1.2 Fonts part of SVG2. That doesn't mean Mozilla will implement them (and as I understand it, Microsoft isn't interested in implementing them either).
> 
> Rob
> -- 
> "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John 1:8-10]
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 04:47:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:49 GMT