- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:03:04 +1200
- To: "Adam Twardoch (List)" <list.adam@twardoch.com>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org, www-style@w3.org, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, OpenType List <opentype-migration-list@indx.co.uk>
Adam Twardoch: > In short: since Sairus Patel has already done the work of proposing a > table format for SVG glyph definitions inside of SFNT, I support it. In Sairus’ proposal, it says: Each glyph definition is a self-contained SVG (TODO: specify more precisely). This TODO is important for evaluating the proposal. Are these glyphs all placed within the same SVG resource document, or are they completely independent? I think there is a distinct advantage to considering them all to be part of the one document (so I think it may be more convenient simply to embed that document as a whole, rather than just individual <glyph> elements), and that advantage is to be able to reuse definitions common across glyphs, such as gradients, patterns, content referenced via <use>, etc. If all glyphs in your font use the same gradient or pattern, then it would better if they did not have to be duplicated in every glyph. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 22:03:47 UTC