Re: Unified draft of SVG-in-OT

Makes sense.
Thanks for the clarification.

On 26/07/2013 12:53 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:

From: Robert O'Callahan <<>>
Reply-To: "<>" <<>>
Date: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:50 PM
To: Nikos Andronikos <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: Unified draft of SVG-in-OT
Resent-From: "<>" <<>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:51 PM

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Nikos Andronikos <<>> wrote:
I do have one question.
The proposal notes that the font bounding box in the head table must be
suitable for static renderings of the glyph.
How is this possible considering features of the glyph may be set
through parameters?
e.g. the user may specify a stroke width of any size.

Changing the stroke width would affect the ink bounding box but not the glyph bounding box used for layout. It's up to the content author to limit values of the stroke width parameter to those that make sense for the glyph shape.

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

The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and may also be the subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the information from your system.

Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 05:02:00 UTC