- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:16:03 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Move SVG text-decoration features to a CSS draft`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: text decoration fill and stroke goes into fill and stroke. Shapes properties go into Shapes L2. Both with notes they're at risk and looking for impl interest` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Move SVG text-decoration features to a CSS draft<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/591<br> <dael> Rossen: request to move text decoration features into css WD<br> <dael> Rossen: Sounds like we took all resolutions last week about moving<br> <dael> Rossen: We have resolution for text-decoration-fill and -stroke. What's asked now?<br> <dael> astearns: Resolutions are from SVG WG<br> <dael> Rossen: You're correct. I was remembering the resolution frenzy a week or 2 ago<br> <dael> Rossen: So SVG group is more then happy if we can take text decor related prop back into CSS<br> <dael> Rossen: Since there are already resolutions on this in the issue we can do one to accept them all<br> <dael> Rossen: Comments or objections?<br> <dael> florian: Would this be text decoration L4?<br> <dael> Rossen: That would be my expectation unless there's a reason to put anywhere else<br> <tantek> are they implemented outside of SVG?<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: fill and stroke module is other logical place. We're rec to move to CSS b/c fill and stroke is taking basic fill and stroke properties which these line up with. They're eq. of text decoration color but if you're using fill and stroke you need to continue that<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: They're in SVG2 right now, but not stable enough for impl to stay there. Fill and stroke module is also called CSS Paints<br> <tantek> q?<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: It's in FXTF repo<br> <tantek> q+<br> <dael> florian: Is there a resolution to move these to CSS Repo?<br> <AmeliaBR> https://drafts.fxtf.org/paint/<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: All FXTF specs are full responcibility of CSS<br> <dael> florian: Yes, but did we resolve to move them<br> <dael> Rossen: Yes, I'm pretty sure we have resolutions<br> <Rossen> ack tantek<br> <dael> tantek: Are these impl yet? Or are they things impl said they want to impl?<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: No impl yet which is why we can't keep in SVG2<br> <dael> tantek: Makes sense for moving them out.<br> <dael> tantek: Do we have any positive noises or statements about intent to experiment or implement from any implementors?<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: In SVG we've had positive statements of the type where if anyone else impl we'll impl too. Nothing beyond that<br> <dael> Rossen: Shape properties were discussed at length. Only impl at time interested was inkscape. Browser impl weren't interested at the time<br> <dael> Rossen: I remember a couple years ago consensus was we will move and use css shapes L2 and go from there. See how much impl interest that takes<br> <dael> Rossen: text decoration fill/stroke I don't recall. I trust AmeliaBR.<br> <dael> Rossen: If the leading question is if they should go to WICG instead that's a good point<br> <dael> fantasai: I think these properties are quite straight forward to what is in fill and stroke already. Question on if they should exist is more interesting. We can add and say at risk and point out we're not sure this is high priority to have fill and stroke sep. I don't think WICG makes any sense b/c analogous to what we have<br> <dael> TabAtkins: Agree. At bare min we're adopting the definitions as exist. We can put in an appendix and note they may not make it.<br> <fantasai> s/straight forward/straight forwardly analogous/<br> <dael> tantek: I'm okay incubating these in WG b/c we've shown good practice in the past. If we don't have impl with interest I'd ask we note in the spec we're looking for impl interest so we're transparent. Other then that fine with where group puts this<br> <dael> fantasai: We can put this in an appendix with that note<br> <astearns> https://drafts.fxtf.org/fill-stroke/#text-decor<br> <tantek> concern with appendix is that indicates informative intent, whereas I think I am hearing normative intent<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: There's a placeholder section already in fill and stroke and it even says they should be at risk, jsut doesn't have actual definitions. Can slot in neatly there right now<br> <myles> i'd like to implement these<br> <fantasai> tantek, appendices are normative unless otherwise noted<br> <tantek> since when? lol<br> <dael> Rossen: Sounds like we're taking text docration fill/stroke into Fill and Stroke spec and shapes into Shapes L2 with a note calling for impl interest<br> <dael> Rossen: Reasonable?<br> <tantek> +1<br> <fantasai> tantek, since as long as I've been working with W3C specs? :)<br> <fantasai> tantek, https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/zindex.html#q23.0<br> <dael> Rossen: Objections to adopting text decoration fill and stroke into text decoration with a note calling for impl interest. Same for shaping into Shape L2?<br> <tantek> fantasai, not since css 2.1 for sure - those were 100% informative / non-normative :P<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: Fill and stroke spec is what we talked about.<br> <dael> Rossen: Sorry, text decoration fill and stroke goes into fill and stroke. Shapes properties go into Shapes L2<br> <fantasai> tantek, I can't tell if you're joking or if you just completely forgot what was in the CSS2 appendices :)<br> <dael> RESOLVED: text decoration fill and stroke goes into fill and stroke. Shapes properties go into Shapes L2. Both with notes they're at risk and looking for impl interest<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/591#issuecomment-448674199 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2018 17:16:05 UTC