Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text][css-fonts] Override (Emoji) Variation Selectors

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Override (Emoji) Variation Selectors`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Close issue 1144 no change`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Override (Emoji) Variation Selectors<br>
&lt;dael> Github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1144<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Some discussion about having font-varient-emoji give the default presentation for emoji in the text. Text can have a variation to say display as graphic or text and that overrides the font-varient default.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: This was opened to say the author should be able to override the text and they suggested syntax was to add an override keyword.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Is this a feature we want? If so, is this the syntax?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I'm not seeing the use case in the GH issue. We often let specific override general here.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: I agree with TabAtkins. This is a lot like changing what the text content is which is not styling's job.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I"m also skeptical there's a use case. One I can think of is in the user style sheet.  I would lean toward not unless there's a clear use case.<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/not/not adding/<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I'm seeing a bunc hof specific use of the override character and I want to fix that. I suspect the use of the override is nil. That can be added in the future so no loss on not doing it now.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Right..<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: I also see Christoph asking us to liase with unicode. Does he think they have a different solution? I can't follow the argument.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: HIs original idea was it's a text tranformation that inserts the variation selector, but I don't see why we care.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I'm not seeing a strong use case and I think we should close until we get an actual use case.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Suggesting close no action?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yeah, with that we would reconsider with an actual use case.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That made it worth impl and testing time.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: mmmmm.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: I also see Raul asking about using this in general. Do we have an answer for him for how to do that? It seems like a seperate sub-issue.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Is there a reason they won't be controlled by this prop?<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Yeah, they're not variation selectors to do that. At the moment if you support color glyphs and this format you just display in color and maybe the user wants monochrome. That sounds more style-like.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: I guess I could ask him to re-raise that as a seperate issue.<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1144#issuecomment-291458684<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: This comment ^?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That's a good quesiton because is the current feature restricted to emoji or effect all glyphs?<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Right. I'm not fully up on variation selectors.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If font-varient-emoji effects more than emoji we need a different name.<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: That one is only emoji according to unicode.<br>
&lt;dael> ACTION Chris ask Raul to re-raise https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1144#issuecomment-291458684 in a seperate issue<br>
&lt;trackbot> 'Chris' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., chris, ChrisWilson).<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1144#issuecomment-294369645<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: Myles had agreed to this and wanted to add the override. Do you think he'd be okay with closing it?<br>
&lt;dael> ACTION ChrisL ask Raul to re-raise https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1144#issuecomment-291458684 in a seperate issue<br>
&lt;trackbot> Created ACTION-861 - Ask raul to re-raise https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1144#issuecomment-291458684 in a seperate issue [on Chris Lilley - due 2017-08-23].<br>
&lt;dael> Chris: I see Myles removed the needs edits. I'm feeling less comfortable about just closing. What's the sense of the people in the room? Do we close and let Myles object?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I believe so. I've read through more and the jutification of the override is really choosing the defaults.<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Close issue 1144 no change<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: We missed Definiteness of flex items' main size depend on flex-basis's definiteness<br>
&lt;Chris> ??<br>
&lt;Chris> oh right<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1144#issuecomment-322831393 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2017 16:45:02 UTC