Re: Fwd: SVG Fonts

James Cloos wrote:
>> What we have here are two different technological solutions to the
>> same problem: that of creating custom fonts to use with a web page
>> (defined as something present on the web; doesn't have to be HTML).
> 
> I don't think that the above is a complete depiction of the raison
> d'etre of SVG fonts.

It's a depiction of the main reason typically given for having them.

> I maintain that SVG should be used for all artwork in XML (and html5)
> documents and that said SVG should not have to depend on external
> resources.

That's fine, and you're welcome to your beliefs.  ;)

Does "external resources" include data: URLs?

> And I have to say, this discussion seems a bit long winded for something
> which ought to be easy to write.

I'm sure roc would be happy to at least evaluate a patch you produce.

But seriously, the discussion isn't about "can we do this?" but "should 
we do this?".  That is, which approach is better for the web platform? 
All else being equal, having multiple ways of doing the same thing 
increases platform complexity for authors, forces more code on all 
implementors, and is generally undesirable unless there are _very_ good 
reasons for having both ways available.  So the question is basically 
"is this spec worth implementing at all?"  For some specs the answer is 
clearly yes; for some clearly no.  For this one, it's clearly a tough 
call for some people, a clear yes for others.  I'm not seeing any clear 
nos, but I _am_ seeing strong reasons to raise the question.

> I just do not understand the resistance.

See above.

-Boris