Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

I also think that synthesizing is a core feature of this CSS property: Without synthesizing, the same functionality can also be achieved using plain `font-feature-settings`. Using `font-variant-position` is nicer, sure. But what happens if the requested webfont cannot be loaded for whatever

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Note that the CSS Fonts 4 spec *requires* the browser to synthesize appropriate scaled/shifted glyphs if the font does not provide them: > In the case of OpenType fonts that lack subscript or superscript glyphs for a given character, user agents *must* synthesize appropriate subscript and

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

We decided to ship font-variant-position without adding a metric measuring whether the feature is applied against a correct font because of difficulties determining a stable document state at the shaping level, for details, see

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2023-05-31 17:38, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM2 On 5/31/23 10:30 AM, Rick Byers wrote: Yes, 100%. Very good point, I was definitely over-simplifying the measurement challenge. Thanks David! On Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:47 p.m. David Baron wrote: I was trying to avoid being

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

LGTM2 On 5/31/23 10:30 AM, Rick Byers wrote: Yes, 100%. Very good point, I was definitely over-simplifying the measurement challenge. Thanks David! On Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:47 p.m. David Baron wrote: I was trying to avoid being too specific about what would be worth measuring both

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Yes, 100%. Very good point, I was definitely over-simplifying the measurement challenge. Thanks David! On Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:47 p.m. David Baron wrote: > I was trying to avoid being too specific about what would be worth > measuring both because I haven't taken the time to think through all

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

I was trying to avoid being too specific about what would be worth measuring both because I haven't taken the time to think through all the details, and because other folks on this thread have a lot of domain expertise that can help figure out what makes sense. I just wanted to point out that if

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Thanks David, Dominik. As API owners I think our job is largely about evaluating interop risk vs. platform benefit. It's hard for me to evaluate the benefit of this feature without synthesis (how big of a problem is webfont fallback in practice?). But it seems clear to me that adding this feature

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Hi David and Rick, It's a shame to me to be holding back interop on the case of fonts having > the superscript or subscript glyphs out of fear for the case where they > don't. Perhaps we can treat the case of font-variant-position being used > with fonts that lack the glyphs as a site bug that we

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

I think it's worth noting that lack of interop here could take two different forms: (1) different behavior in different browser engines and (2) different behavior on different machines in the same browser engine, because of different system font availability. Some of the more advanced font

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

It's a shame to me to be holding back interop on the case of fonts having the superscript or subscript glyphs out of fear for the case where they don't. Perhaps we can treat the case of font-variant-position being used with fonts that lack the glyphs as a site bug that we can work to address

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 5:49 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 11:27 AM Manuel Rego Casasnovas > wrote: > >> There's a CSSWG issue about this topic in particular: >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7441 > > > Is this something that can be put on the agenda for the CSSWG

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Indeed, thanks David!! On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 11:27 AM Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: > Hi David, > > Thanks for the amazing email! > > On 23/02/2023 23:52, David Baron wrote: > > I don't think the specification was designed around the idea that some > > implementations would follow the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Hi David, Thanks for the amazing email! On 23/02/2023 23:52, David Baron wrote: > I don't think the specification was designed around the idea that some > implementations would follow the spec's rules on synthesis and some > implementations would ignore the spec... and thus it does appear to be

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

A few notes on the history of this feature that relate to some of the questions asked: When font-variant-position was being designed, the CSS Working Group had an extensive discussion (part 1 , part

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

The API owners discussed this at length in yesterday's meeting, without reaching concrete conclusions. It seems to me that it'd be good to get some web developer signals here to get a better understanding of if and how they'd be able to use the feature, given the interop issues in case of fonts

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Duplicating the summary of our conversation from the chat here. We agreed that it might be confusing for some of the web authors if they don't check the font for the feature existence beforehand. Also implementing synthesis behaviour detection most probably is not possible since feature

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

On 21/02/2023 10:06, 'Munira Tursunova' via blink-dev wrote: >> Is there a way to feature detect the synthesis functionality or not? How >> a web author will be able to differentiate between Gecko vs >> Chromium/WebKit behaviors? Would the lack of this feature confuse >> authors? Maybe having

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

> Is there a way to feature detect the synthesis functionality or not? How > a web author will be able to differentiate between Gecko vs > Chromium/WebKit behaviors? Would the lack of this feature confuse > authors? Maybe having some console message information when > font-variant-position doesn't

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

I'm curious how this relates to the "old" way of doing superscript. If I understand correctly (and I might not!), then x2 will render as "x²", somehow finding the "super" variant of 2 in the font? The old way of doing this would be with x2 which will use the normal glyph for 2, but smaller

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Is there a way to feature detect the synthesis functionality or not? How a web author will be able to differentiate between Gecko vs Chromium/WebKit behaviors? Would the lack of this feature confuse authors? Maybe having some console message information when font-variant-position doesn't have any

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

I will recuse myself from this one since I have an interest in the success of Interop 2022 (and 2023), but I think shipping this makes sense. Chrome is the last browser to not support it at all, and we've seen with other features that the time it becomes available in all browsers can be an

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Contact emails moon...@google.com, dr...@google.com Explainer https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-variant-position Specification https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#propdef-font-variant-position Summary The font-variant-position CSS property controls the use of