Re: Unified draft of SVG-in-OT

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <>wrote:

> Whether authors may want it isn't the issue – the fact is that it would
> completely inappropriate to have a glyph that is placed at at a specific
> location on a page drawing outside it's given "box" - not just slightly,
> but even worse, somewhere completely different.
> If you don't clip – what is to prevent a glyph from doing its own
> translate transform and ending up somewhere else on the canvas/page?!?!


Clipping to a static box makes things difficult in the presence of animated
glyphs. It's impossible in general to automatically calculate a single ink
bounding box that will contain every frame of an SVG animation, so we can't
fully automate this in font design tools. Authors will sometimes have to do
it manually. Either way it's unnecessary work, compared to the approach of
just not clipping in the renderer. (Computing the ink bounding box of a
single frame of an animation is easy.)

Opentype already has fonts whose glyphs extend far outside the box used for
layout --- Zapfino for example --- so I think allowing SVG glyphs to extend
arbitrarily far is also reasonable. Of course it can be used for
aesthetically displeasing effects, but we can't legislate aesthetics.

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *

Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 03:45:43 UTC