- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:38:25 -0000
- To: www-svg@w3.org
"Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org> wrote in message news:20030727073505.GA32448@grorg.org... > > On Sun 27 Jul 2003, Jim Ley wrote: > > 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. It's hassle for me, I'm trying to bring in a document that is smaller than the GIF equivalent it's replacing, and currently it's a struggle, 2 less missing-glyph elements would be a big help. Requiring it achieves nothing (since it would just use the missing-glyph character from the next font if any glyph isn't found)
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2003 12:40:23 UTC