Re: [OpenType] Re: Clarification of some aspect of opentype SVG spec

Hin-Tak,

You can indeed do what you suggest below. See Behdad’s response earlier
today.

Behdad thanks for spelling out the specific example, which utilized both
kinds of “sharing”: sharing an SVG doc as well as, within that SVG doc,
sharing of common portions via <use>. Both kinds of sharing need to be
used to pull this off.

Sairus

-----Original Message-----
From: Hin-Tak Leung <htl10@users.sourceforge.net>
Reply-To: Hin-Tak Leung <htl10@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 2:51 PM
To: "opentype-list@indx.co.uk" <opentype-list@indx.co.uk>,
"public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org>, Sairus Patel
<sppatel@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: [OpenType] Re: Clarification of some aspect of opentype SVG
spec

>Hi,
>
>Splicing separate svgDoc seems overly complicated; but on the other hand,
>one gigantic svgDoc for all glyphs have a number of disadvantages -
>latency, robustness against minor corruptions, etc. What would be really
>useful for the sort of thing that Miguel tries to do, is to extend the OT
>SVG spec slightly to cater for one svgdoc for a number of glyphs not in
>contiguous id range. For example, one might like to keep to a glyph Id
>order, Adobe Japanese Supplement 5, say, but have all the various 'a'
>with diacritics in one doc, all the 'e', e', e~, etc in another; and
>grouping CJK ideograms by radicals (i.e. entire top/bottom/left/right
>half of a glyph). That kind of grouping is not possible under the current
>spec without reorder the glyph ids.
>
>Hin-Tak
>--------------------------------------------
>On Thu, 2/18/16, Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> What Behdad is suggesting
> is the idea of a glyph being rendered using more
> than one SVG doc from the ‘SVG ’ table.
> 
> I didn’t think this was
> within the intent or perhaps even capability of an
> SVG rendering system, since these are isolated
> SVG docs. That would be
> akin to an image
> being split across two PNG files, for example.
> 
> Could Cam, Chris Lilley, or
> others weigh in? Perhaps there is a concept of
> concatenating or combining SVG docs that is
> natural to an SVG system.
> 
> If one wants any glyph in the font to share
> something with any other glyph
> in the font,
> having all glyphs be defined in the same SVG doc would be
> the
> way to go (or some other very
> coarse-grained chunking into SVG docs), with
> the current spec. The alternative, having the
> font software manually
> splice separate SVG
> docs (perhaps by stripping starting and ending
> portions?) to pass them to the SVG renderer
> seems complicated.
> 
> Sairus

Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 23:03:34 UTC