On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>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?!?! > Nothing. 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. Rob -- 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