- From: Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:58:54 -0700
- To: list.adam@twardoch.com
- Cc: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, www-svg@w3.org, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, OpenType List <opentype-migration-list@indx.co.uk>
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Adam Twardoch (List) <list.adam@twardoch.com> wrote: > Obviously, SVG Fonts have some good and interesting concepts. One of > their advantages is that they can -- at least in theory -- freely > combine all aspects of SVG: multi-colored, multi-layered vector > graphics, and bitmaps. > > However, SVG Fonts also have some serious drawbacks: while the glyph > definition using SVG is a great concept, all the other aspects of SVG > Fonts that make them work as a font, especially the character mapping, > access to alternate glyphs, and the layout behavior, are somewhat > under-defined and hard to implement. Therefore, it's rather unlikely > that at any time, all OS and application vendors will agree on a good, > full implementation of SVG Fonts. While I certainly like many of the abilities that SVG fonts can bring, I was under the impression that the problems with them run further than what you list. For example, you theoretically have the ability to add an <html:video> to a <glyph> (loading the data from a data: url, if necessary). How does this work? ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 17:59:18 UTC