- 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