LGTM3 On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 7:48 PM Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org> wrote:
> LGTM2 > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 10:20 AM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> 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 >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/d49673b0-57c6-4cc3-ae75-7169c4c380f5n%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/CAARdPYc046YmzoWN8QEq1iuQgyWrOJqgGUCbBBMQ1yBaA11Zbg%40mail.gmail.com.
