[css-paint-api] The paint() function should probably take a <custom-ident>

[nox]

https://drafts.css-houdini.org/css-paint-api/#paint-notation

This should probably say:

paint() = paint( <custom-ident>, <declaration-value>? )

https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#custom-idents

It doesn't matter much but I think it is good style anyway to not accept CSS-wide keywords anywhere just as to not confuse users.

[bfgeek]

-paging in memory-
@tabatkins & I talked about this at some stage. I think it was originally a <custom-ident> but we change it to an <ident> as there was no good reason why we shoudn't accept the css-wide keywords in a paint function.

But we'll quickly talk about this next week.

[tabatkins]

Yeah, there's no particular reason here to exclude someone from creating a paint function named "inherit" - it'll never show up directly in a property context, so it's never a parsing problem.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed ident vs. custom ident, and agreed to the following resolutions:

• RESOLVED: Keep the spec as in

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: ident vs. custom ident
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/729
<dael> iank_: Currently it's spec as an ident. Except css-wide keywords like inherit.
<dael> TabAtkins: WE said ident so we don't collide. Since this will always be in a function there's no collision so no reason to exclude unless style reasons.
<dael> iank_: I don't think there's any reason not to.
<dael> leaverou: I opened an issue 20 minutes ago to say it was more readable if the ident was moved to the name. Does this interfere with that?
<dael> iank_: No.
<dael> iank_: Objections to keeping it as an ident?
<dael> Rossen: The person filing the issue was not here?
<dael> TabAtkins: Yes.
<dael> Rossen: Just curious if they have really strong opinions.
<dael> fantasai: If you start disallow and then allow nothing will break.
<leaverou> s/if the ident was moved to the name/if the ident was moved to the function name, so that instead of paint(foo, ...) it would be paint-foo(...)/
<dael> TabAtkins: I doubt if it'll break. default is the only one that could be useful.
<dael> Rossen: Objections to keeping it as is?
<dael> emilio: No but I wouldn't object to changing either. It seems harmless.
<dael> ChrisL: It's not ambiguous, but it's unclear. There's tests failing in fonts with initial. I'm mildly in favor of the proposal.
<dael> gsnedders: I'm also mildly in favor.
<dael> Rossen: How mild? If you object let's discuss.
<dael> gsnedders: I don't care.
<dael> RESOLVED: Keep the spec as in
<dael> s/in/is