- From: Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:37:02 +0600
- To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
- CC: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Dave Crossland wrote: > 2009/10/22 Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>: >> Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> >>> To be clear, what I am stating is that two is better than requiring 3 or >>> 4, given that every browser vendor has strong feelings about at least one of >>> the formats on the list. Sure, it would be great if we could bypass this and >>> agree on one but I very much doubt this will happen over email; and as >>> browser vendors will still support their current >>> features and browsers upgrade at a different pace, authors still need to >>> deal with what's out there. >> I'm wondering about SVG Fonts which have hardly been discussed here - can >> any browser currently use SVG fonts to render text outside of an svg >> graphic? > > Promoting SVG fonts is A Good Thing? > Well it is one of the "font formats" in the proposal - I've never seen an SVG font outside of an SVG document or graphic ~ so they seem quite different from the rest of the formats mentioned which are clearly going to be used for displaying HTML / XHTML text. Chris
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 14:37:43 UTC