RE: SVG Fonts inside of OpenType fonts? [Cross-post from www-font@w3.org]

Just an observation - this discussion was started on multiple email lists with the intention to draw as much of an attention as possible but with the proposal to have "www-font" list be the main venue for it. As it is the case now - the discussion is fractured with different separate threads going on at least three different email lists. 

Vlad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Cameron McCormack
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:01 PM
> To: Boris Zbarsky
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SVG Fonts inside of OpenType fonts? [Cross-post from www-
> font@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 Wednesday, 29 June 2011 17:10:12 UTC