- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:01:06 +1200
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Glenn Adams: > I probably shouldn't throw this in, but I wonder how these semantics would > handle situations like Example 1 under "Examples [of] Devanagari syllables" > in [1], where a sequence of 12 Unicode characters maps to a sequence of 4 > glyphs, and where the inverse association from glyph to generating character > indices are as follows: > > Glyph Char > Index Indices > > 0 <- {10} > 1 <- {2,3,4} > 2 <- {5,6,7,8,9} > 3 <- {0,1,11} > > The semantics of associating x offsets (and similar properties) with > characters as opposed to glyphs seems rather disconnected to me. What I would expect from the above example is that if you have <text x="10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140"> azzzzzzzzzzzzb </text> where the zs are the 12 characters mapping to the single glyph that you mention, then you would get the “a” glyph at x = 10, the Devanagari glyph at x = 20 and the b glyph at x = 140. That’s what the rules in http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/text.html#TSpanElement say to do (the third bullet beneath “The following additional rules apply …”). > One can certainly talk about associating x offsets with the output > glyphs, but attempting to associate such properties with input > characters that may be subjected to a complex, non-continuous, > disjoint mapping to glyphs seems questionable, except in the special > case of 1:1 continuous mappings. Yes, the x="" attribute there shouldn’t break up the complex glyph. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 04:01:41 UTC