- From: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:38:05 -0700
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- CC: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CE17E3AD.221BE%sppatel@adobe.com>
CFF OpenType doesn't specify glyph bounding boxes (by bounding boxes I mean ink bounds, not advance width and other layout metrics). I don't think we should burden the SVG OpenType fonts with declaring bounding boxes for either static or animated renderings. As Rob said, the SVG renderer can compute the ink bboxes, and if that goes beyond the bounds of what the host application wants or is comfortable with, the host application can do the clipping to whatever the bounds it deems as appropriate. In the various font engines I work on, we tend to ignore any bounding boxes declared in the font since many are incorrectly set. Sairus From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:24 AM To: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> Cc: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au<mailto:nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>> Subject: Re: Unified draft of SVG-in-OT Resent-From: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>> Resent-Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:27 AM Because you need to define the behavior up front and ensure that it's consistent. You can't have it being clipped in one case and not in another – that would produce inconsistent renderings of the same glyph. I am trying to ensure that these extensions to OT are usable in non-web-based environments. This is one of those places where it is important to set "boundaries" on what could potentially be done in order to guarantee that usage. Leonard From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> Reply-To: "robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>" <robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 11:22 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> Cc: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au<mailto:nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>> Subject: Re: Unified draft of SVG-in-OT On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: So you're suggesting that it's OK for a single glyph to be able to draw ANYWHERE on the page/canvas?!?! Sorry, but that's "crazy talk" (<grin/>). I recall a conversation with a colleague 25 years ago where we had a similar argument. Bottom line: "It's my window and you can't draw on it". If the caller wants to clip glyph drawing to a particular rectangle, I assume they can do so using whatever 2D drawing API they use. I don't really understand this conversation. 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 15:38:42 UTC