Re: Ambiguity in glyph element definition

Chris Lilley:
> There is an ambiguity in the 1.1 SE spec, which says
> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/fonts.html#GlyphElement
> 
>   The graphics that make up the ‘glyph’ can be either a single path
>   data specification within the ‘d’ attribute or arbitrary SVG as
>   content within the ‘glyph’. 
> 
> (not the "either" but also says
> 
>   If the ‘glyph’ has both a ‘d’ attribute and child elements, the ‘d’
>   attribute is rendered first, and then the child elements.
> 
> I believe that some implementations ignore child elements if there
> is a d attribute. (This ambiguity is the subject of a current errata
> item).

I couldn’t find the erratum that mentions this ambiguity.  URL?

> Suggested fix:
> 
>   The graphics that make up the ‘glyph’ can be a single path data
>   specification within the ‘d’ attribute, arbitrary SVG as child
>   content within the ‘glyph’, or both. 
> 
> If we agree, I will update the SE text.

What’s the argument for rendering both rather than one of them?  Is that
what the erratum says?

> Also, child elements of glyph are untested in the test suite. Doug and
> I discussed this on the phone earlier and came up with several things
> that should be tested. I plan to ad some to the test suite over the
> next week or two and will add them into the wiki as they are done.

Sounds good!

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 01:46:32 UTC