- From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:54:41 -0500
- To: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi Alex, On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com> wrote: > >>So I still fail to see the need to allow truly arbitrary SVG, >>particularly when no browser yet supports it - though some claim to >>support the SVG Font feature strings: >>http://www.codedread.com/svgtest.svg cough Opera ahem :) > > A nice orthogonal implementation shouldn't need to provide > excessive and/or abitrary constraints, don't you think? I don't understand this question, can you clarify? Do you think it's correct for Opera/Webkit to claim they support the SVG Font string without supporting arbitrary content in <glyph> elements? It's not clear to me from the spec (though it's possible I have missed it) but I guess it doesn't matter any more since Opera/Webkit have been out there for awhile so we now have a defacto meaning for the #Font feature string. >>> Indeed, text in SVG can be seen as a way of generating a bunch of use elements laid out one next to another according to some rules (advance width, font size, kerning). >> >>Since SVG has no advanced layout (yet), this will result in users >>trying to 'corrupt' the intention behind SVG fonts to take advantage >>of these rules. I've actually seen this done before by using font >>glyphs and text elements in ways that have nothing to do with text > > Hmm. > > SVG fonts provide capabilities that go far beyond boring OpenType > fonts - like animation as a minor example. > > This thread seems to have been born from a reluctance to write > code to do what the specification described and ASV has implemented > from a number of years ago, not to mention other implementations. I can't speak for roc, but my statements have nothing to do with writing any code. Jeff
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 14:59:29 UTC