- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:53:57 +0100
- To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:04:37 +0100, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com> wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > For the tests: ... > WOFF is not an option for these tests. They are aimed at SVG user agents, > not compound document handling web browsers disguised as universal > application > platforms facilitating operating system redundancy:-). Alex is right, the tests cannot require support for WOFF since that's not a required part of SVG 1.1 (or CSS2.0). > WOFF is a _Working Draft_ last published on 27th July 2010. It is a long > way from Recommendation status and as such, completely unsuitable for > being > referenced in any test for features in a W3C Recommendation. > > I know from your point of view the request seems advantageous for > convenience, > but it is incompatible with the process, and effectively breaks all the > Tiny implementations being shipped today. To be clear, the group has not agreed to remove the SVG Fonts in those tests, but to add fallback fonts in an additional format(s). I don't think that's a breaking change, but I agree with you about the riskiness of adding a font format that is still in working draft status. Would downloadable TTF fonts be any better? I don't mind if there are fonts you can download and install on the system, and I don't mind adding an additional test that doesn't use text there. /Erik -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 15:54:33 UTC