Hi Yoav, Alex, Yoav wrote:
> I think that a short explainer outlining exactly what you're planning to > ship here and how you're expecting developers to use it would be helpful. > Can you add one? (potentially even inline, if it's rather short) > As Philip points out, the explainer can be found here <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-fonts-4/src-explainer.md> which was also used for the previously filed TAG review. I just updated it for the new syntax. My bad for not adding it in the initial post. Yoav, re your question what is it that I want to ship: Parsing and filtering resources in the @font-face src: descriptor line in Blink does currently not understand the tech() function. I want to bring Blink to the spec level, make it understand the tech() function and filter fonts accordingly. That means not adding src: line components to the list of font blobs to be downloaded which are not supported in Blink. E.g. (features-graphite, color-SVG). CL for reference with feature behind flag here <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3856267>. [...] and how you're expecting developers to use it would be helpful [...] > The explainer lists 3 main use cases <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-fonts-4/src-explainer.md#use-cases> . For more context: This intent to ship is a follow-up from an earlier attempt to ship a previous form of this feature and syntax <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/bCA9H3eaO3s/m/pe7T3PFdAQAJ>. In the I2S then a TAG review was requested, *TAG review here* <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/666>. The TAG suggested changes <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/666#issuecomment-901220221>, the syntax was updated, and @supports(font-tech()) feature was added to CSS Conditionals 5 and keywords between these two features were harmonised. Alex wrote: > We discussed this at today's API OWNERs meeting and, while I realise I > should perhaps be directing most of these comments at the CSS WG more > broadly, I'm concerned that the bundle of features that this function is > designed to support are not clearly articulated, which argues for an > explainer and perhaps a TAG review. > > Specifically: > > - What problems do the "variations", "palettes", and "incremental" > values address? There should be clear enunciation of those issues in an > explainer, a discussion of considered alternatives, and example code > describing how this specfic design best meets those needs. > > The specification lists what the particular terms mean and what browser font support they address: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-tech-definitions - tech(variations) then means that a UA understands the OpenType Variations functionality of this font resource. - tech(palettes) then means that a UA can understand the CPAL color palette information in this font and is able to apply palettes to it using font-palette CSS. - tech(incremental) is forward looking and means that the UA can load this resource if it understands incremental font transfer. I am personally open to not shipping this particular keyword until UAs start implementing incremental transfer Example code is in the explainer: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-fonts-4/src-explainer.md#examples . > > - Related, why is "tech()" overloaded for whatever those values do as > well as explict named technologies and sub-features? > > Do I understand your question right: Are you asking why tech() combines keywords that sound broader, and some that sound more specific to a particular technology? I.e. variations vs. color-COLRv0? These keywords and technologies are chosen as levels of font support that a UA may have. OpenType Variations support is one are of technology support, then the specific color font formats are other levels of support. I imagine they may sound unrelated or wide vs. specific, but from the perspective of evolution of font support in browsers, from my point of view they make sense as a means to describe feature support of the text stack. Does that answer your question? > > - Since we're going first, and the only group that seems to have > looked at this is the CSS WG, shouldn't there be a TAG review? > > A TAG review was requested and concluded <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/666>, which resulted in the updated syntax and the addition of @supports( font-tech() ) to CSS Conditionals 5. We are not the only ones shipping this: Firefox implemented and aims at shipping this and @supports( font-tech() ) very soon in one of the next upcoming releases, FF bugzilla #1786493 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1786493>. The feedback I hear from Jonathan Kew, their font expert: This feature is a useful part of shipping COLRv1 font support for selecting the right resource. > The CSS WG continues to work outside of our incubation and explainer-based > model for feature development, and as a general matter it's not OK. > > I realise this feature is hostage to a bad work mode and it isn't the > developer's of this syntax's fault, but we need to break the cycle. > > Future CSS features that do not incubate, center developer feedback > (perhaps through OT), and show signs of incubation may also invoke delays > from me. > As the implementer of this feature in Blink, and as you're indicating in your reply in terms of the audience of your feedback, I am not able to extract actionable feedback from this part other than encouraging the CSS WG to adopt this model or using it if I am driving a feature myself. Other than that, am I missing something from this part? What do you exactly mean by "break the cycle" here? I do hope we can proceed with this feature - as this is the second iteration after the TAG review and earlier TAG and blink-dev feedback. Dominik On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:52:02 AM UTC-7 Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:11 PM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 3:09:39 PM UTC+2 Dominik Röttsches wrote: >>> >>>> (re-sent from @chromium.org address) >>>> >>>> Contact emailsdr...@chromium.org >>>> >>>> ExplainerNone >>>> >>> >>> I think that a short explainer outlining exactly what you're planning to >>> ship here and how you're expecting developers to use it would be helpful. >>> Can you add one? (potentially even inline, if it's rather short) >>> >> >> Perhaps a small edit to >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-fonts-4/src-explainer.md >> to say what this is for and give an example? >> >> Some text from >> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#ex-color-if-supported could be >> lifted. Spelling out what the different keywords in tech(keyword) do in >> plain language would be helpful. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAN6muBtjyOn%3DzibFztkcsG4TG0xvi5WjJAFQ%2BSvsgHobr9po9Q%40mail.gmail.com.
