- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:06:51 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Friday 2009-09-11 15:06 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: > On Friday, September 11, 2009, 1:28:39 AM, Jeff wrote: > JS> I'm afraid I still didn't understand the use case for allowing TRULY > JS> arbitrary SVG content as children of the <glyph> element. > In other words, whatever the content creator can draw, and might > be tempted to draw as a 'picture of text' they can also do, as > real text. It seems like it would vastly simplify implementations of fonts if the case of "here's a picture for this particular use of this particular piece of text" were handled through a mechanism to say that a particular picture (or part thereof) represents a certain text string. Then fonts would only need to support the features that were needed for glyphs that people actually expected to reuse for different uses of the same character or character sequence. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 14:07:33 UTC