Apologies for a bit off-topic: BTW, given that some folks at Apple don’t seem to be great fans of COLRv1, while Google isn’t a great fan of SVG, chances are that we’ll see the phasing out of "sbix" and "CBDT", but both COLRv1 and SVG will stick around — also because SVG allows bitmaps. Check out:
- https://creativemarket.com/search?q=opentype+svg - https://creativemarket.com/romanjusdado/2950202-Wooden-Tiles-Font - https://creativemarket.com/SamParrett/5150302-Glory-Culture-SVG-Font-Extras - https://creativemarket.com/helloimgreg/2330313-Stranger-Times-OpenType-SVG-Font of su This stuff is all bitmap-based, it’s all released fonts available on the market, and for now, they’re OT+SVG only. COLRv1 won’t replace them. This means that we’ll keep seeing OT+SVG fonts, OT+COLRv1 fonts and quite possibly _hybrid_ OT+SVG+COLRv1 fonts, which kind of make sense if the font vendor wants to make the users’ life simple. I’m just saying — the hybrid OT+SVG+COLRv1 font is not an eccentricity, I think it’ll be reality — especially if font editor vendors like FontLab make creation of such hybrids easy. With 4 separate color font flavors, the market acceptance was low (but still, people have made many such fonts). But as soon as those flavors are down to just 2, I think both will stick around. (Though I do see a reason for sbix to also exist, especially in Apple’s own HEIC flavor, not PNG, which they use on iOS). Best, Adam On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 5:07 PM Cosimo Lupo via FreeType development < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Werner and all, > please find attached a test COLRv1 + SVG font, containing only one color > glyph ✍ "WRITING HAND" (U+270D) emoji. > The font was built using nanoemoji > <https://github.com/googlefonts/nanoemoji> using the following command, > from the root of the noto-emoji > <https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-emoji> repository: > > $ nanoemoji --color_format=glyf_colr_1_and_picosvg --keep_glyph_names > --pretty_print --family "Noto Color Emoji COLRv1 And SVG" > svg/emoji_u270d.svg > > Let me know if that is what you are looking for. > Cheers > > Cosimo > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 7:51 PM Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Do you still need such a test font with SVG and COLR in it? I guess, >> > we can make one if it's needed. >> >> This would be still very helpful, yes. I think it would be helpful >> for for fuzzing, too. A single glyph (besides '.notdef) would be >> enough. >> >> >> The question doesn't arise for serious `COLR` handling, as >> >> described above. In case of the convenience `COLR` rendering, >> >> `SVG` takes precendence. >> > >> > I think the table preference decision should be made by the >> > application, or in the FT_LoadGlyph then with flags that allow >> > separate selection? >> >> Since the convenience stuff is tagged as experimental, and Alexei has >> some serious concerns I probably won't change anything right now. >> >> > FWIW, overall, I think if a font has COLRv1 and SVG, COLRv1 should >> > have preference as it enables variable capabilities. >> >> This is up to the application; there is no issue w.r.t. precendence at >> all. >> >> >> Werner >> >
