W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2014

issues with OpenType spec referencing the SVG Integration draft

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:59:15 +1100
Message-ID: <53222A33.9090705@mcc.id.au>
To: "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
CC: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Here is the current draft of the OpenType spec that includes SVG glyphs:

https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/12860955/740362423/name/w14124_14496-22_WD6_3rd_ed-redline%2Ezip

Comments are due by March 24, and then there will be a meeting of the 
MPEG group that works on OpenType in early April.  We need to send 
comments to their list by March 24 if we want particular changes 
accepted in the April meeting.

 From discussion on today's SVG call, it sounds like there are two 
issues we need to decide on:

1. Whether we want to leave the definition of how particular SVG 
features work in font documents -- such as disabling <foreignObject> and 
<text> -- in the OpenType spec itself, or if we want to have it 
reference one of our documents, like SVG Integration, so that we can 
update it more quickly than we could make updates to OpenType.

2. Whether the current reference to SVG Integration for the "secure 
animated mode" (which is where the requirement to disable script etc. 
currently comes from) is acceptable, given we haven't published a 
Working Draft.

3. (Which we didn't mention on the call but is also worth discussing:) 
If we do define (1) in the SVG Integration document, whether that 
document should also define the user agent style sheet that maps the 
palette stuff into CSS Variables.

If we are going to leave the reference to SVG Integration in the 
OpenType spec, then we should make a concerted effort to publish a 
Working Draft of it so that we can point to 
www.w3.org/TR/svg-integration/ or whatever stable URL it will have.  I'd 
be happy with removing (temporarily or until the next version) anything 
that would stop us from publishing a draft with the bits we need.

I can put in the work (and probably should have already) to get SVG 
Integration published.

I personally would be happy with the approach of (1) defining in SVG 
Integration a term "running as a font document" or something like that, 
off which we can hang our requirements to disable <foreignObject> and 
<text> rendering, which can be updated for versions of SVG >1.1; and 
therefore (2) leaving the reference to SVG Integration.  I am happy for 
(3) to remain in the OpenType spec.

It sounded like Dirk you feel differently.  Can you summarise your view?

As I mentioned I can't call in next week, so if we can come to a 
decision on the list here that would be good.

Thanks,

Cameron
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 21:59:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:51 UTC