Re: Fwd: SVG Fonts

On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 1:38:45 PM, James wrote:

JC> The point is that SVG files should not have to depend on other, external
JC> files to render.

I agree that being contained in the same file is another advantage of SVG fonts.

JC> Because most renderers fail to support SVG fonts, typical SVG-outputting
JC> software uses what are essentially sprites for each glyph, placing them
JC> just like setting text.  Cairo and Ghostscript are two examples.

"Most" is not correct. Opera, Batik, Ikivo and Bitflash all support SVG fonts (to name the most popular implementations; the latter two being the arket leaders on mobile). Quite a bit of mobile or set-top box content uses SVG fonts in fact. There is also good authoring support in terms of converters or direct authoring tools - Inkscape most recently, but also Corel Draw and Adobe Illustrator will export them and there are conversion tools from Batik, and axport options from fontforge.

Certainly, lack of SVG font support and lack of animation support are the two major dips in the Mozilla results over the SVG 1.1 test suite. And I understand both areas are being actively worked on?

JC> Were they able to use SVG fonts — and expect rendering software to
JC> support that — then the original text would be available in the SVG,
JC> enabling accessibility support at the very least.

That is also true.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:[email protected]
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

_______________________________________________
dev-tech-svg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-svg