- From: Glenn A. Adams <glenn@xfsi.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:11:57 -0500
- To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, <public-tt@w3.org>
- Cc: <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org] > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:49 PM > To: public-tt@w3.org; Glenn A. Adams > Cc: robin.berjon@expway.fr > Subject: Re: TT and subtitling > GAA> One potential issue with the SVG font format is its apparent > GAA> lack of support for bitmap as opposed to outline glyph > representations. > > That is a strength, not a feature. How are you going to cope with a > range of display sizes and resolutions with a bitmap font? Obviously, if some author used embedded bitmaps, then it is clearly sub-optimal for device interoperability. On the other hand in some contexts, it might be that the author or perhaps the delivery system knows precisely what the required display sizes and resolutions that are required. On the other hand, clearly it would be a mistake, and I would never advocate sole reliance on use of bitmap representations; I just want to be certain that we meet the needs of common authoring and delivery systems, where there are many more uses made of bitmap glyph downloads than outlines at this time. One possible way this might be used is as follows: 1. authoring and distribution system specify outlines inline; 2. emission system that knows device capabilities pre-rasterizes, changing outlines to bitmaps; If we fail to define a way to embed bitmaps, then in this scenario, the emission system would be forced to use a different content format or to extend it in a potentially non-interoperable way. I would like to see us be able to support this scenario without requiring a different content format or a non-standard extension. G.
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 15:12:00 UTC