- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:50:39 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
@chaoaretasty This is definitely an area missing in the spec, but it is a known issue. The CSS working group has been working on a new [`font-presentation` property in CSS Fonts 4](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-presentation-desc) (the name of which is [still being debated](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1092)). But, as the property is currently defined, it wouldn't cover your use case. It only applies to specific Unicode codepoints (symbolic characters which predate color emoji) that Unicode defines as having emoji and non-emoji variants. It would be helpful, therefore, if you could raise this as an issue on the CSS Fonts spec, to see if you can gain any traction for a univeral property that affects more than just SVG. (Which will become necessary, anyway, when the new [Fill & Stroke spec](https://drafts.fxtf.org/fill-stroke-3/) extends those properties to all CSS text.) You can leave this issue open for addressing the discrepancy in browser defaults for SVG text, but I don't expect a resolution until a decision is made on the broader issue. ___________________ PS, My perspective is that authors should be able to choose whether to use a multicolor glyph from the font or to use the monochrome outlines with their own fill & stroke, for all emoji & for any other character when using color fonts. I'm open as far as what the defaults should be, and whether they should be different for SVG. I'm surprised but intrigued that some browsers support multicolor fill from the font with a separate SVG stroke. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/381#issuecomment-360855514 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 26 January 2018 17:50:44 UTC