- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:24:59 +0200
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:36:05 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > 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. My claim was that if you take an SVGT12 svg font and run it through an SVG 1.1 validator it would conform to SVG 1.1. Therefore I could just as well have called them SVG 1.1 Fonts. I made no claim that they'd cover the whole set of functionality in SVG 1.1 however. > All I claimed is that the various implementations of SVG 1.1 Fonts in > particular: > > 1) Are incomplete. Sure, to the best of my knowledge there are no available products that support all of SVG 1.1 Fonts. The argument about incomplete implementations would probably be valid for many other specs/standards too. > 2) Implement different subsets of SVG 1.1 Fonts I've not yet seen any evidence of there being any significant differences. > 3) Don't agree on some parts that more than one implements. I'd like to see some data to back that claim. Cheers /Erik -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 08:25:35 UTC