Colored Repeat Barlines

I’m working on some educational material and was curious if Dorico has the ability to change the color properties of repeat barlines. The option is there in the properties panel but when I select a color, it won’t change the color of the barline. The color property works with notes, text, etc…
Is there a way to do what I’m asking or is this not possible at this time?

I am afraid, it is not possible yet to change the color of repeat barlines.

Will there by a way, in the future, to force Dorico to use glyphs to draw objects that are now drawn as primitives?

This is related because it could be the case of repeat barlines. Obviously barlines in general should be drawn as primitives, but SMUFL (and Bravura) have glyphs for many such objects, and forcing them to be drawn as glyphs under specifiable conditions could afford users greater graphical and stylistic control.

Or to use even a simpler example: the dots are drawn (I believe) using U+E044 — “Repeat dot” — instead of U+E043 — “Repeat dots” — which prevented me from designing a kind of repeat barline that needed to take advantage of differently positioned repeat dots. I’m aware this sounds absolutely finicky on my part, but it would be good to know.

It’s highly unlikely that Dorico will ever draw barlines using glyphs rather than primitives, since glyphs are by their nature highly inflexible, and the complexities of even drawing e.g. a simple double barline crossing multiple staves are considerably greater when using glyphs than using primitives.

Yes, I’m quite aware of that, naturally. I was imprecise: I was imagining a combination of the two — like a notehead or a flag positioned along a line — rather than actually drawing a whole line using a glyph.

Under what conditions would the repeat barline or repeat dots glyph be used, then?

SMuFL is a superset of the characters defined in the Unicode Musical Symbols range, which defines things like repeat barlines. Bravura contains all SMuFL symbols because it is the reference font for the SMuFL standard, but you should not expect that Dorico will use every glyph in Bravura. We do not plan, for example, to add support for Daseian notation in the foreseeable future…

The repeat barline and dots glyphs could get used in a text annotation above the staff, in an urtext or critical edition. Old editions sometimes contain typos like missing repeats (i.e. not matching in pairs) or repeat signs that are almost certainly on the wrong barline. Sometimes the original notation for 1st/2nd time endings is rather vague as well, but you don’t want to just throw the “wrong” notation away without any comment about it.

And if you are reconstructing a full score from a manuscript that only exists as a set of parts (some of which may have come from different sources or been recopied at different times) it’s not unknown for the repeats written in the surviving parts to be inconsistent with each other!

I’m well aware of those cases, friend, I just can’t resist trying to take advantage of the software to the fullest! I’ve dabbled in music font design amateurishly for quite some time, and since I want Dorico to be my main tool from now on, I get nosy on these things. I’m wholly satisfied with Daniel’s answer. I did not at first hold such a clear distinction between (say) SMuFL as type and Bravura as a token, since these are things I pick up from play and curiosity, not in a very reflexive manner. Your suggestions are of course very relevant, though my first instinct would be to circumscribe such a use to Bravura Text, no? Either way, no matter.