Re: Spec Rec next steps for CSS 3 Fonts

I just reviewed the patch, and looked through the draft and it looks good.

There are a bunch of issues on the GitHub bug tracker marked as both “css-fonts-3” and “Needs Edits.” Do I need to make these edits before we publish?

—Myles

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 7:45 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> * There is a pull request on WPT for previously untested parts of Fonts 3:
> 
> updated 2 font-variant-position tests to allow for spec-allowed fake superscript and subscript, not using OpenType features
> 18 tests for font-stretch
> 5 tests for font-synthesis
> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/7972 <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/7972>
> Review needed - Myles?
> 
> * Agenda+ republish CSS 3 Fonts
> 
> Several features are marked at-risk in the ED but not in the published /TR version, which is also ancient. Myles, is that okay to go? Specifically for the sections where we removed stuff, I think CSS 4 Fonts is up to date with the Font OM things?
> -- 
> Chris Lilley
> @svgeesus
> Technical Director @ W3C
> W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
> W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media