The 0.0028% number is low, but I wonder what the effect will be on the
sites that use webkit-pictograph today. Will they get another font
containing the same glyphs, or is there a risk a symbol won't show at all?
If they "just" gets a differently looking font, then the risk is even
smaller.
/Daniel
On 2021-11-10 20:01, Yoav Weiss wrote:
Removal seems reasonable with those numbers. What's the deprecation
timeline you're looking for?
On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:50:42 AM UTC+1 ssi...@igalia.com wrote:
Hi Yoav,
https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3986
<https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3986>
Monthly average on 1 Nov: 0.002803%
On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 8:52:28 AM UTC+2 Yoav Weiss wrote:
Link to the use counter?
On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 3:00:27 PM UTC+1
ssi...@igalia.com wrote:
Average usage during October for font-family:
webkit-pictograph was 0.00003094
On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 9:44:00 AM UTC+3
yoav...@chromium.org wrote:
I just re-ran the pictograph query and got 3231
results out of ~7.5 million pages, which puts us back
in the 0.04% range.
Adding a use-counter sounds like a reasonable way to
see what actual usage looks like.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 7:36 AM Frédéric Wang
<fw...@igalia.com> wrote:
Le 13/08/2021 à 14:23, Frédéric Wang a écrit :
Interoperability and Compatibility
This feature was implemented by Apple in 2011
before the Blink fork and is still implemented in
WebKit. It has never been implemented in Firefox.
A HTTPArchive search from March 2020 provided
1903 pages out of ~5millions (i.e. 0.0003806%).
I'm adding a user counter to actually measure
when a -webkit-pictograph font is actually
resolved to the corresponding user font setting
which may give more accurate/relevant data.
One motivation is to improve interop with Firefox
and spec compliance. But I'm also trying to
refactor our internal font-family implementation
that is inherited from WebKit time and is a bit
messy right now. Original generic names like
"serif" or "cursive" have web-exposed bugs ; the
recently implemented "system-ui" too but behaves
inconsistently ; and we have non-standard values
like -webkit-pictograph. Once things are cleaned
up, we can consider implementing new values like
font-family: emoji, math, fangsong, ui-serif, etc
without adding more problems...
... however, one can also argue that it's would
be better to implement "font-family: emoji" as a
replacement/alias to "font-family:
-webkit-pictograph" before deprecating/removing
the latter. Again, this is possible but mean we
would add more web-exposed bugs / inconsistencies
in the meantime.
So I'm not really sure about the best approach.
Sending "Intent to Prototype" for now and waiting
for feedback.
/Gecko/: Positive No support for -webkit-pictograph
/WebKit/: No signal
(https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2021-August/031938.html
<https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2021-August/031938.html>)
This has been implemented in WebKit since 2011.
In general Apple is against removing features
that could potentially break web compat or their
platform. I asked them to see if they would be
happy to add "font-family: emoji" as an alias for
-webkit-pictograph, as they did for "system-ui".
In general about the current font-family
implementation, Myles C. Maxfield commented in
the github PR to add WPT tests that he is aware
of the issue and doesn't think it's desirable
that these -webkit-* values are web-exposed.
/Web developers/: No signals "font-family: emoji"
was added in the CSS fonts spec, so I guess there
is interest to make this more standard. I was not
able to find the github discussion, though.
So just to follow-up here too,
HTTPArchive result from March 2020 from Yoav were:
* -webkit-pictograph alone represented less than
0.04% of pages.
* -webkit-pictograph + -webkit-body +
-webkit-standard represented less than 0.1426%
That sounded big, so I had started to prepare a
use counter that would provide finer measurement
(i.e. only measure when the font family setting is
actually resolved for -webkit-pictograph) :
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2124260
<https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2124260>
New results from August 2021 provided by Yoav and
Dominik showed that together -webkit-pictograph +
-webkit-body + -webkit-standard represent less
than 0.004% of HTTPArchive pages so it's an order
of magnitude smaller.
Reference doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYJzL-MWQrTmf9Z-KscTWuM_5n6-IVdJeEllJ3Appro
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYJzL-MWQrTmf9Z-KscTWuM_5n6-IVdJeEllJ3Appro>
--
Frédéric Wang
--
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+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e6efc0e1-34a4-8546-a03e-53d69871ded5%40igalia.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e6efc0e1-34a4-8546-a03e-53d69871ded5%40igalia.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/72382e15-ca4b-4277-9dbe-fa5c571250cen%40chromium.org
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/72382e15-ca4b-4277-9dbe-fa5c571250cen%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/b438929a-ba2d-ebd3-6ec1-9f3f7fd36fba%40gmail.com.
