- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:36:52 -0400
- To: "opentype-migration-list@indx.co.uk" <opentype-migration-list@indx.co.uk>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:43 AM Karsten Luecke wrote: [in response to the proposal from Sairus Patel] > > I am not sure if this is so much better than Adam's suggestion: > 1) Static vs Animated SVG > > If you want to make this distinction, why not just define an "SVGs" > (static) and an "SVGa" (animated) table, and for each of them give an > explicit definition of what subset of SVG data it may contain? > > I don't get why you want to make this a top-level distinction. I had a similar question - why would this distinction should be introduced at the potential expense of duplicating all glyph data? One possible way to address it is to consider the initial state (frame 1) of animated glyph description as its static representation if animation is not supported. Thank you, Vlad
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 19:37:23 UTC