- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:50:06 -0700
- To: Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>
- CC: list.adam@twardoch.com, www-font@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org, www-style@w3.org, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, OpenType List <opentype-migration-list@indx.co.uk>, schepers@w3.org
Tab Atkins wrote: > 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. I'm also wondering about this. The idea of making colour and animation available to fonts for display settings* is attractive, but I'm not convinced that bolting SVG into an sfnt structure à la CFF is the way to go about it. Is SVG in fact a good mechanism for colour and animation in fonts? Might a better one be defined? If SVG fonts were more widely supported than they are, then Adam's proposal would be compelling, but given how wary some of the major players have been of SVG Fonts in general, I'm wondering if we should be considering options, including defining something clean and intrinsically sfnt compatible from scratch. At the W3C gathering in Lyon last year, Christopher Slye (Adobe) and I had an interesting conversation with Doug Schepers (W3C) regarding 'Fonts 2.0', and the possibilities of W3C working with the font community to identify what sort of things on screen typography might need -- both in terms of fancy stuff like colour, and also improving text reading experience -- and defining these as W3 recommendations. Although Doug is heavily involved with SVG, it wasn't obvious from the conversation that SVG Fonts would *necessarily* be the basis for any of this. JH * There are also examples of scripts that are traditionally bi-colour in text settings to. The most obvious of these is the Ethiopic Ge'ez script, which has bi-colour punctuation signs in traditional manuscripts. The Unicode glyph charts show only the black portion of these signs, which traditionally are augmented with red.
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 18:50:38 UTC