W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > February 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-4] font-presentation doesn't have a great name (rename to font-variant-emoji)

From: DeeDeeG via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 22:09:11 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-363927724-1518041351-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Ah, okay. Very interesting.

Isn't there a bit of an overlap between those categories, namely SVG, though? Opentype SVG is capable of being "paletted" per the spec and per my actual obervations of browser behavior: An outline with an unspecified (or sometimes `#000000`) color will take color from CSS `color` property, but any portion of an SVG with defined (eg `#0101ff`) color will not take on the CSS `color`.

As such, SVG is acceptable as a vehicle for a purely "palletted" font; or a font with only baked-in, explicitly set colors; or some combination within the same font or within the same glyph.

I do think that black/white (exclusively "palleted") SVG fonts aren't very popular at the moment, but they do stlil exist. And a glyph can "respond" partly to CSS `color` without being a "palleted-only" glyph: https://github.com/eosrei/emojione-color-font/issues/21#issuecomment-198023126

I guess browsers could do (psuedo-code):
if [
  glyph_has_any_non-palleted_color_feaures_at_all) then[
    glyph_is_graphic(); ]
    glyph_is_text(); ] ]
P.S. The whole `COLR` + `CPAL` combo is based around pallets, but seems to require explicit colors so as *not* to take on CSS `color`.

GitHub Notification of comment by DeeDeeG
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1092#issuecomment-363927724 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 22:09:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:24 UTC