- From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:35:05 +1000
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Sun 27 Jul 2003, Jim Ley wrote: > > Hi, > > Missing-glyph is a required child of the font element, it seems odd, in a > self contained non-editable document, the only way a glyph could be > not-found is author incompetence, why do we require it to be a child? I > don't see the value. It encourages good use in the cases where the document is editable or the author in incompetent, and provides little hassle to the competent authors (even those that are producing non-editable documents). Whoosh! What a sentence. You're right, it isn't strictly required in the case you mention. Maybe the UA could have created a missing glyph (rectangle/tofu) if it were missing (it always has the font dimensions and default advance)? Also it could be that it is just a simple mapping from a required feature in popular font formats (OpenType, TrueType, PS1). This is just a guess and probably wrong. My feeling is that we don't really need to change this unless there is a good reason. dean
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2003 03:35:12 UTC