Re: [paint] Publishing FPWD of Fill and Stroke Module

Thanks to you both,

I'll try to do a careful review & response to spec issues at some point,
but there is one issue that should at least be added to the spec before
FPWD:

The initial value of fill-color isn't backwards compatible.  It needs to be
"black" to be compatible with the initial value of SVG fill.  But then that
isn't backwards-compatible with regular CSS text rendering (which uses
color).

Options:

   - give fill-color an `auto` value which equates to `black` for SVG
   elements and to `currentColor` elsewhere.

   - add a separate text-rendering-mode property that determines whether to
   use basic text rendering (currentColor fill, stroke ignored) vs fill+stroke
   paint (and use the user stylesheet to switch mode for <svg> then switch it
   back for <foreignObject>).


In the discussion on the proposed "font-presentation" property (
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/352#issuecomment-285129212) I
suggested that this switch could be integrated into a property that also
switched on or off multi-color fonts.

(The current draft of "font-presentation" that Myles compiled is much
narrower, however, and only applies to characters that take unicode emoji
variant selectors:
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-presentation-desc)

On 15 March 2017 at 17:31, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> Tab and I just wrapped up the last remaining edits from the Sydney F2F
> last year
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0358.html
> where we were asked to merge the spec with heycam's Strokes module. (Most
> of the
> edits went in last August, but we dropped the ball on wrapping them up and
> asking
> for publication, sorry.)
>
> The draft is here:
>   https://drafts.fxtf.org/paint/
> We think it is ready for FPWD.
>
> Note that there are a lot of issues:
>   https://drafts.fxtf.org/paint/#issues-index
> This is okay. The point of FPWD is to say "we've got a a good rough draft
> of the
> module and are ready to ask for broader input", not "this is ready for
> implementation".
> (But we should probably discuss them all at some point, too.)
>
> If this is a topic that interests you, please have a look at the draft and
> let us know if
>   * there is anything we forgot to add to the spec
>   * there is a particular issue you absolutely want to resolve before FPWD
>   * there are other issues that aren't noted in the spec or in github
>   * you're OK with FPWD
>
> (We would also love it if anyone wants to send us a list of "Here are my
> preferred
> answers to all the open questions in the spec" as there are rather a lot.)
>
> Also, I'm proposing to mark this as Level 3 (post-SVG2) and Tab wants to
> mark it
> as Level 1 (first level after modularization), so we'll have to get a
> resolution
> on that, too. >:]
>
> ~fantasai and TJ
>
>