- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 01:42:02 +0100
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
On Monday, October 31, 2011, 8:30:33 PM, Charles wrote: CP> And I understand that SVG fonts do not support various items that would CP> make them a worthwhile alternative -- such as supporting semantics to CP> render full color emoji. You have that exactly backwards. SVG fonts *are* able to support colour, animated, emoji while TrueType and OpenType do not. However, current work to allow SVG glyphs inside OpenType fonts would give the colour and animated capability of SVG fonts with the greatly superior internationalization and feature flexibility of OpenType; and such an OpenType could be transported as woff. That seems to me by far the best way forward. CP> That said: there is a high barrier to entry when working with binary CP> formats. I can't -quite- be helped with PNG, but SVG does do something CP> about that -- it allows hand coding of images in ASCII format, and it CP> still permits raster images to be included. Yes (assuming by ASCII you mean Unicode) CP> There is a high barrier to entry for designing and generating WOFF. Not really. Its certainly possible to design an SVG font and then convert it to OpenType and produce a woff. (FontForge, and FontSquirrel, are two ways to do this). CP> Meanwhile: creating an SVG font is as easy as creating an SVG. It can CP> even be debugged right there, in real time, in the browser. One could CP> easily write a program to allow drawing in SVG, and exporting those CP> glyphs as an SVG font. All of this is ASCII/DOMString compatible. WOFF CP> is not. It's not easily interchanged, not easily supported on the CP> server-side. CP> With all due respect to WOFF, it's far too formal for many basic use CP> cases. I have no idea what you mean by 'too formal' here. Is it a synonym for 'binary format'? CP> It's just so much easier to use SVG Fonts for basic cases than to go CP> through the necessary actions to use WOFF. CP> Again, I know there's no hinting, and all that other stuff. It's really CP> not been an issue in -any- of the use cases I've had for SVG Fonts. In CP> contrast, compiling and working with a complex binary format, that has CP> been an issue. I'm very experienced with what I do, but it's still a lot CP> of work for me. I consider that an undue burden on other authors trying CP> to support glyphs. I think your worflow issues are easily adressd by authoring in SVG and then converting to OpenType woff (which is, I'm sorry, a pretty simple process with existing, free, software). -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 00:42:47 UTC