W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Revisiting SVG Fonts

From: Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:38:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOu7Uv7=OMznNC2mKQCb2yKp3iT2Be73T+5_-7+qCL5sFfO5_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
>> 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].
> When you say "we're not really interested" does that mean:
> a) We will not do this. If it is in a specification we will not implement
> it.
> or
> b) We're not motivated by this, we have no particular concerns about this
> matter at this time.
> c) Something else.

We have security and performance concerns over having things like foreignObject
in SVG Full 1.1 Fonts for instance but the main issue is complex shaping,
if that was solved then coloured glyphs would just be detail and if someone
wanted to add that on top, I imagine that would be OK. Walk first, run
later though.

Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 12:26:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:33 UTC