On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:50 AM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote: > Tab Atkins wrote: > > While I certainly like many of the abilities that SVG fonts can bring, >> I was under the impression that the problems with them run further >> than what you list. >> > > I'm also wondering about this. The idea of making colour and animation > available to fonts for display settings* is attractive, but I'm not > convinced that bolting SVG into an sfnt structure à la CFF is the way to go > about it. Is SVG in fact a good mechanism for colour and animation in fonts? The Web has no better one. We would need to see very large advantages over SVG to justify creating a new (animated) color vector image format for fonts, IMHO. > Might a better one be defined? If SVG fonts were more widely supported than > they are, then Adam's proposal would be compelling, but given how wary some > of the major players have been of SVG Fonts in general, I'm wondering if we > should be considering options, including defining something clean and > intrinsically sfnt compatible from scratch. > I am probably the most notorious skeptic of existing SVG font specs, but I like Adam's approach very much. Rob -- "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John 1:8-10]
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 21:58:43 UTC