Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-4] font-presentation doesn't have a great name

The CSS Working Group just discussed `font-presentation doesn't have a great name`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: property name is font-variant-emoji`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: font-presentation doesn't have a great name<br>
&lt;dael> Github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1092<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: It's if you present emoji as visual emoji or text.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: There has been some discussion on this. Who wants to speak to this?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: There were suggestions in the issue. I think we should pick one.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Yes, tantek emoji are text, but you can present a smily face as a graphic or smily-face-emoji (or something like that) Unicode allows both.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: It's a monocolor glyph or a colored glyph for this.<br>
&lt;dbaron> I'd suggest maybe the property name isn't being very good at describing what this does...<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Oh. THat's different actually. Unicode values are text and emoji which is wierd. Shouldn't it be chromatic and monocolor? I hand't got from text that it's black and white.<br>
&lt;leaverou> +1<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: dbaron agrees with me.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I was thinking it was the name of the property.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: It's the name of the property we're bikeshedding. There are various suggestions.<br>
&lt;dbaron> not the names of the values?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I know someone suggested font-emoji. monochrome and color seem reasonable.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If you have multi-color fonts they're not monochrome.<br>
&lt;leaverou> +1 for monochrome and color. monochrome is also consistent with the MQ value<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Truuuuuuuue. Are they painted like normal text or tiny images.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: It's a strange way to present it.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: If we have values that are monochrome and color it seems font-varient: emoji would be reasonable.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: That's my personal pick.<br>
&lt;leaverou> what about symbol and graphic?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Makes sense to me.<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/font-variant: emoji/font-variant-emoji/<br>
&lt;Chris> font-variant-emoji: monochrome | chromatic<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: It's definitely better. Unless someone has a defferent prefence we should resolve.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Property name is an improvement.<br>
&lt;tantek> agreed with the change to monochrome - much more descriptive than "text"<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Support on property name, still discuss values.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: leaverou suggested symbol and graphic<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I like that.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I'm not sure I like symbol. Graphic or image is good for full color.<br>
&lt;tantek> line-art<br>
&lt;dael> leaverou: Line art and graphic?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: It could be fully filled pictures.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Glyph vs graphic?<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: They're both glyphs.<br>
&lt;dael> leaverou: Rich and plain?<br>
&lt;dauwhe> plain and fancy :)<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Plain's not back.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: plain and image maybe.<br>
&lt;dbaron> s/back/bad/<br>
&lt;dael> s/back/bad<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: We have ideas. We can continue value name in the thread.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Let's resolve on property and leave values for bikeshedding.<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: property name is font-variant-emoji<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1092#issuecomment-322828654 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2017 16:35:01 UTC