Re: issues with OpenType spec referencing the SVG Integration draft

Hello Cameron,

Thursday, March 13, 2014, 10:59:15 PM, you wrote:


> 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.

It would be better to have it in SVG Integration, so we can update as
needed.

> 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.

Its acceptable to ISO apparently but I would prefer that we quickly
add the "Font: disable text and FO" mode then go to FPWD.

> 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.

Yes.

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

We just need a minuted resolution, then can ask for FPWD and have it
published the next Tues or Thurs.

> 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.

I would be happy for that too but prefer to see (3) in integration so
that for example CSS can refer to it more easily and so we can send it
through Candidate Rec with a test suite and implementation report.

> It sounded like Dirk you feel differently.  Can you summarise your view?
Reading the minutes it wasn't clear at all what Dirk wanted.



-- 
Best regards,
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

Received on Friday, 14 March 2014 16:36:29 UTC