- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:21:43 -0700
- To: bbirtles@mozilla.com
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
On 9/9/2011 5:08 PM, Brian Birtles wrote: > (2011/09/10 4:55), Ian Hickson wrote: > > I'm not closely involved in the SVG work. Can someone elaborate on the > > status of SVG Fonts and SMIL animation in terms of future plans for > > browser vendors? Are these features that are intended to be phased out? > > Mozilla is not planning to support SVG Fonts (as per [1][2][3]; > however the idea of embedding SVG Fonts in OpenType[4] has attracted > some interest including from Mozilla). That said, there was a > resolution that SVG 2 would mandate support for SVG Fonts to some > degree.[5] It'd be nice to see a resolution to that bug report 119490, to confirm that SVG Fonts is dead as a UA-supported format. We use it for basic interchange, and it does just fine. But we also render the text blocks in canvas. Roc is correct, in stating that WOFF is a more powerful format. But it's also binary, and far more complex to build, test and develop with for basic use cases. As is the case with most binary formats. I don't see anything in Robert's post that warrants the SVG Fonts death sentence, but if it has lost its final appeal, it'd be nice to inform the family. > [2] > http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/06/not-implementing-features-is-hard_03.html > [3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490 If SVG 2 is supporting some level of SVG Fonts, it seems counterproductive for Mozilla to block patches to their code base implementing it. -Charles
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 00:19:50 UTC