Re: SVG Fonts [...] from Boris Zbarsky on 2010-06-07 (www-svg@w3.org from June 2010)

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:36:05 -0400
To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
CC: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <4C0D03D5.2060108@mit.edu>

On 6/7/10 10:12 AM, Erik Dahlstrom wrote:
> Fair enough, and SVG 1.2T fonts are a subset of SVG 1.1 fonts so I could
> just as well have called them SVG 1.1 fonts.

_This_ I don't follow.  In general, claims about subsets of a set need 
not be true of the whole set, so the above sentence doesn't make any sense.

All I claimed is that the various implementations of SVG 1.1 Fonts in 
particular:

1)  Are incomplete.
2)  Implement different subsets of SVG 1.1 Fonts
3)  Don't agree on some parts that more than one implements.

-Boris

Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 14:42:10 UTC