- From: Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:59:34 +0000
- To: www-svg@w3.org
> On 11/3/11 3:04 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > What I took away from Robert's comment was that SVG 1.2 Tiny is not > sufficient for inclusion in Mozilla. I believe that a more complete > implementation of the specification in SVG 1.1 may be acceptable, > inclusive of animation and multi-colored glyphs. No, an SVG 1.1 Full font implementation is even less likely to be accepted into the codebase than SVG 1.1 Tiny font support. We're not really interested in supporting animation or multi-coloured glyphs[1]. What we do want is something that can work with languages other than those of Western European origin. As I understand it SVG Fonts are missing the complex scripting support that would allow Arabic for instance to be correctly rendered. Extending the specification to permit this in a way that we could use our existing font shaping capability that's part of WOFF is what we're after, or alternatively proving by example that it's already possible with the existing specification. We think the web should be for everyone, not just those who can read and write English so we're not going to implement something that can't be used by a large part of the world's population. [2-5] Putting SVG into OpenType font tables is one solution that would allow this as we could take advantage of our existing complex shaping capability. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490#c70 [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490#c49 [3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490#c95 [4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490#c99 [5] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490#c104 Best regards Robert.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 09:00:11 UTC