SVGOpenTypeFonts: Difference between revisions

SVGOpenTypeFonts (view source)

87 bytes removed , 19 February 2012

14

edits

Revision as of 06:26, 17 February 2012 (view source) Eflores (talk \| contribs) (→‎Prototype Implementation) ← Older edit		Revision as of 23:40, 19 February 2012 (view source) Eflores (talk \| contribs) (→‎Adobe's Proposal) Newer edit →
Line 77:		Line 77:
	Adobe are keen on a similar idea, an early proposal of which can be found [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svgopentype/2011Oct/0000.html here].		Adobe are keen on a similar idea, an early proposal of which can be found [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svgopentype/2011Oct/0000.html here].

	The main differences I can see are that each glyph definition has a whole SVG document. Also, they have two glyph definitions per actual glyph -- one static, one animated. I think we ~~should just allow the author to specify a specific frame to use when not animating; I~~ can~~'t really think of any use case where the~~ static ~~version wouldn't~~ be ~~a frame of~~ the ~~animated one~~.		The main differences I can see are that each glyph definition has a whole SVG document. Also, they have two glyph definitions per actual glyph -- one static, one animated. I don't think this is necessary, though; we can let static glyphs be the glyph without any animations applied.