Hey Dominik, Thanks for getting back to me, the detail on the syntax, and for the link to the explainer. Thanks also for correcting me regarding the TAG review. I feel much better about the proposal as a result of all of this detail.
On the CSS WG aspects, if features are developed w/ epxlainers like this, as long as we're going first, it might make sense to use OT to road-test them with developers, but I won't stand on it here as the explainer is clear and, presumably, developers will weigh in with their support. LGTM Best, Alex On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 6:28:21 AM UTC-7 dr...@google.com wrote: > Hi Theo, > > On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 3:07:04 PM UTC+2 Theodore Olsauskas-Warren > wrote: > >> (Chrome OWP Privacy reviewer drive-by) >> >> I'm trying to understand whether the various tech() capabilities are >> directly derivable from already exposed information, and this is just a >> convenience, or whether otherwise identical UAs might give out different >> values based on the platform or user configuration. >> The privacy section in the spec about " What data does this specification >> expose to an origin?" seems silent on this, >> > > I think I answered a very similar privacy review question in the previous > iteration of this I2S, in this thread > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/bCA9H3eaO3s/m/bjOhM6MLFQAJ>, > > does this help? In short, in Chrome it is almost equivalent to the user > agent major version, as we do not have platform specific differences in > this level of font stack functionality. > > Hope this helps, > > Dominik > > >> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 4:31:39 PM UTC+2 dr...@chromium.org >> wrote: >> >>> 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 <yoav...@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/d49673b0-57c6-4cc3-ae75-7169c4c380f5n%40chromium.org.
