- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:00:44 +1200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky: > There are several different versions of SVG fonts. SVG Tiny 1.2 > fonts don't allow that sort of thing (since you can't put an > <html:video> in SVG Tiny 1.2 at all). > > So it should be possible to standardize a definition of SVG fonts > that restricts the glyph geometry descriptions in a sane way. To be honest, if we want to allow SMIL animations inside the glyphs (which would help with the animated emoji case) then I don’t see it as too much of a stretch to allow an <html:video> inside there to play. I agree though that allowing <svg:animate> to work is much more useful than <html:video> (inside an <svg:foreignObject>, presumably). Let’s not choose the SVG Tiny 1.2 style fonts, though. If we’re embedding them in an OpenType font, it gives us no advantage beyond allowing self-intersecting curves, etc. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 22:01:14 UTC