- From: Řistein E. Andersen <html5@xn--istein-9xa.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:54:34 +0200
On Thursday 10th April 2008, Ian Hickson wrote: > SVG radicals aren't typographically acceptable either. > You really want to use fonts for this. Current browsers are clearly better at rendering TrueType and PostScript fonts at small sizes than equivalent shapes expressed as SVG paths. (This may or may not or may only in part be related to hinting as I never tested this using hinted and unhinted versions of the same font, but I suspect that hinting does not account for everything.) Poor or even abysmal on-screen rendering made me abandon this approach last time I considered maths-to-SVG conversion. This particular problem would however be less of an issue with bigger and/or more geometrical shapes, and I would consider TeX's construction of, e.g., vincula (horizontal lines) by overstriking of tiny bits from a font to be an artifact of not being able to intermix text and graphics freely rather than to result from intrinsic aesthetic superiority of the `everything-from-fonts' approach. Now that Safari for Mac supports custom fonts using @font-face and other browsers will follow suit, using fonts for text and operators and SVG graphics for big delimiters and geometric symbols would seem to be a reasonable approach, and I would be interested to know what might make SVG radicals `typographically unacceptable'. (Obviously, fonts and SVG elements must be coordinated.) <http://coq.no/musica/it> illustrates the concept for musical notation (SVG lines to draw the staves combined with a font for the clefs and accidentals), and I think SVG would also be appropriate for ties in musical notation, bonds in chemical 2D formulae, &c. to achieve high-quality, typographically sound rendering. Am I na?vely overlooking an inherent problem with SVG? -- ?istein E. Andersen
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 07:54:34 UTC