- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:07:58 +0200
- To: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com>
- CC: "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org>
Hello Sairus, Thursday, September 26, 2013, 5:31:32 PM, you wrote: > This would be a good draft for the Chair to publish as this group's first > "Report." > Changes so far from the "unified draft": > - Use CPAL. Thread "FW: [mpeg-OTspec] COLR, SVG tables: sharing color > palettes". > I'm trying to obtain a standalone CPAL proposal to reference. So if CPAL changes, the svg-in-OpenType spec would not change, right? > - Remove wording around font bounding box (thanks, Nikos). Discussed in > "Unified draft of SVG-in-OT" thread. > - Not permitting foreignObject. > Others? Not permitting foreignObject is an obvious first step, but that implies that all of the rest of SVG is permitted. I could reasonably foresee one or two profiles of SVG - static (non animated) SVG profile for OpenType - animated SVG profile for OpenType However, those would also be separate documents. And these might be recommended subsets, or might be minimal supported subsets (ie you have to do this and you can do more). So perhaps some vague language such as "Specifications which reference SVG in OpenType may choose to establish minimal conformant subsets of SVG. Such profiling is outside the scope of this specification." or something like that. In other words, it may happen, but not in this spec, which is stable. [chair hat] Please let me know when the draft report is available, and I will issue a call for consensus to publish the report. I would expect a one-week period for objections, given that the diff from the previous spec is small. After that, it will be published as a Community Group Note. [/chair hat] -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 17:08:03 UTC