Re: SVG Fonts [...]

Even if there are real use-cases for SVG Fonts not handled by Opentype,
we still run into the i18n issues, that SVG Fonts will only work for
simple scripts and Arabic. It's not satisfactory to say that those
use-cases only work for those scripts, and as I said in a previous
email, I don't think adding complex script shaping to SVG Fonts is
feasible. I think we'd be better off extending Opentype, or adding SVG
features that work in conjunction with Opentype.

What do you mean with i18n issues? SVG Fonts support unicode, you can
define glyphs dependent on the language:
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObject/fonts-glyph-03-t.html

I don't have enough experience to evaluate if either OpenType or SVG
Fonts have the better features. I also don't understand the argument of
rasterization. Fonts will be drawn like any other shape. But I already
mentioned that I don't have the knowledge to talk about the differences.

SVG Fonts are part of SVG 1.1 at the moment and a SVG1.1 compliant
viewer should support it. I don't have problems with supporting
OpenType, WOFF or every other font format as long as it is (or will get)
supported by CSS. But you're not discussing, if we also support WOFF /
OpenType. It looks like you just give explanatory statements why Firefox
won't support SVG Fonts.
Your statement that SVG Fonts are not widely used is not the best point
of view. I could also say, that WOFF or OpenType is not widely used,
comparing all websites out there. Or that WOFF is not widely used, so do
we need to support it?
The same for your annotation, that SVG Fonts 1.1 is not implemented on
any viewer. That's not true. There is just no complete implementation
out there. But the same applies to SVG. Should we stop SVG support?

Dirk

Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 06:48:43 UTC