CSS transforms are not supported by IE8 and lower (~4.6% of users), and might come with substantial performance costs on other browsers. (I haven't checked this.) Also, would this really save that much? I don't understand compression very well, but I would think the gzipping would shrink down most repetition anyway.

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Stephen E Slevinski Jr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On 9/7/14, 7:50 AM, Jonathan y Yolaine wrote:

Have you considered making a font with only the fills for each basegroup, then using CSS to do the rotation and miroring? Because you'll need CSS to do the symbol placement and sign layout anyways. The font would be about 12 to 13 times smaller. Do you see any drawbacks doing it this way?

Hi Jonathan,

This might be helpful in some cases, such as the hands and the arrows, but it would add a lot of complication. The exceptions would have to be identified and handled correctly.

Specifically, rotation 1 and rotation 2 do not match up perfectly on the 45 degree rotation. From rotation 1, we could derive rotations 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15. From rotation 2, we could derive rotations 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16. This is a relic of the symbol set from SignWriter Dos and Valerie's original PNG version of the ISWA 2010.

I do not think it would be worth the efforts, but I would be happy to be wrong. Having a much smaller font would be a good thing.

Regards,
-Steve

________________________________________________

SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION

Valerie Sutton
SignWriting List moderator
[log in to unmask]

Post Messages to the SignWriting List:
[log in to unmask]edu

SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist

Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages
http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1

Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1