- From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:53:42 -0400
- To: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com>
- Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOY=jURW33PcVqP1coChG3wumdtyTCQPMNOkjebCSGpqCs1BBA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com> wrote: > 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. > +1. Not having to encode bounding boxes also speeds up many things, like subsetting. behdad > Sairus > > From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:24 AM > To: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > > Cc: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, " > public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Unified draft of SVG-in-OT > Resent-From: "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <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> > Reply-To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org> > Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 11:22 AM > To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > Cc: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, " > public-svgopentype@w3.org" <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>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 15:54:24 UTC