- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:39:57 -0800
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>
On 1/22/12 3:42 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Hi Charles, > > just addressing the first point: > > Charles Pritchard: >> Mozilla has made it very clear that they will not implement SVG Fonts >> without additional extensions. >> They've put weight behind their veto threat in all versions of Firefox. >> >> They've demanded that the Fonts chapter, if supported, must have >> additional features. Otherwise, they will only support WOFF. >> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Requirements_Input#Fonts > > We (Mozilla) are working towards an SVG-inside-OpenType solution. > This will provide better internationalisation and a simpler model for > animated, graphical fonts. This approach seems to have some support > within the Working Group, although nothing formal has been written up > or resolved upon yet. And I'm very much looking forward to it. There is an open source solution available for decoding open type files, modifying and re-encoding them back to binary, all from JavaScript. That solution will help prototyping the SVG-inside-OpenType spec -- and I look forward to doing so with WebKit in the future. But as for the current issue, Mozilla has raised objections with the SVG Fonts chapter, pending resolution: "the main issue is complex shaping" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2011Nov/0040.html I'd like to see the SVG inside opentype included in the SVG2 requirements, too. -Charles
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 01:40:23 UTC