- From: Christoph Päper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 12:32:17 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@litherum If I understand the UTC correctly, they consider the VS solution a clutch and would like higher-level protocols (like CSS) to take precedence. Richard Ishida @r12a is W3C’s (i18n) liaison contact for Unicode – I didn’t find anyone else to ping at Github (e.g. Addison Philips, Unicode’s Rick McGowan or Mark Davis, Apple’s Peter Edberg, except for Google’s Markus Scherer @markusicu) who may know better [whom to ask]. @AmeliaBR With your proposed wording, `text` (or `monochrome`) would still result in colorful emojis if the first font in the stack that has any support only has colorful glyphs. This behavior may be okay for `auto`, but not for `text`, because authors and users need a way to suppress colorful emojis altogether. I’m not sure about this, but maybe another preference should be covered by the respective property as well: **bitmap versus vector glyphs**. As you may know, Apple and Google are currently using PNG-based emojis, whereas Microsoft, Mozilla and Adobe (and W3C) back vector-based solutions. [Opentype 1.8](https://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/otff.htm#otttables) standardizes all of them. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Crissov Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/352#issuecomment-285028898 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2017 12:32:23 UTC