- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:12:57 -0600
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFDDJ7yMvsgLZoK6cxDdNYCJ=6Ng_aKKJELJaac=Gy4y663_Fw@mail.gmail.com>
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 > >
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2017 17:13:32 UTC