SVGOpenTypeFonts: Difference between revisions

SVGOpenTypeFonts (view source)

197 bytes added , 3 May 2012

1,295

edits

Revision as of 01:36, 3 May 2012 (view source) Roc (talk \| contribs) (→‎SVG Glyphs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 01:38, 3 May 2012 (view source) Roc (talk \| contribs) (→‎Adobe's Proposal) Newer edit →
Line 123:		Line 123:
	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 don't think this is necessary, though; we can let static glyphs be the glyph without any animations applied.		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. Note that it's easy to create a glyph DOM subtree containing separate "static" and "animated" glyphs such that if SMIL is enabled, the animated glyph is drawn, otherwise the static glyph is drawn.