Could this issue be fixed as part of this work? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/70993962/emoji-variation-selector-doesnt-work-for-user-specified-font It is inconsistent with other browsers. When you explicitly state that you want an emoji, or text, the order of your font stack shouldn't effect that.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7:56:36 AM UTC+1 ChangSeok Oh wrote: > Thanks for clarifying the question. > > > On 7/8/23 21:40, Sangwhan Moon wrote: > > > On 2023年07月08日 07時03分10秒 (+09:00), ChangSeok Oh wrote: > > > How so? > > Sorry, what is your question? > > If you were asking why the TAG review status was Not applicable, I have no > idea. That is the default text for unanswered slots at chromestatus.com. > Gecko implemented this feature first, so they might try the TAG review. I > cannot find the pointer, unfortunately. > > > The question was why it is not applicable (also related to the lack of an > explainer, been observing and noticing this particular pattern around CSS > features - so trying to understand the *why*) - what particular > user/developer need are you trying to solve here, and does that warrant > revisiting whether or not this is the right approach to tackle the problem. > > I think font-variant-emoji can help reduce the developer's chore in > controlling the representation of emoji shapes and unwanted copy-paste > results incurred by prefixing variation selectors [1, 2]. I would not say > this API is the right direction or the only solution to solve that problem, > but I could find developers' voices and expectations related to this API > from the web [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. > > [1] > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32915485/how-to-prevent-unicode-characters-from-rendering-as-emoji-in-html-from-javascrip/76583273#76583273 > [2] > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64172221/change-the-presentation-of-emojis-to-be-plain-text-like-with-css > [3] > https://nolanlawson.com/2022/04/08/the-struggle-of-using-native-emoji-on-the-web/ > [4] https://twitter.com/tomayac/status/1643703278713151488 > [5] https://twitter.com/hypeddev/status/1644727445507956737 > > > Gecko's implementation seems to be behind a flag [1], so the wild usage > I'd imagine is very low. I think we'd want to understand why the Gecko > implementation never got properly rolled out as well... > > I have no idea about their release plan. But I found that feature was > implemented and added to the main trunk relatively recently [6]. Perhaps, > Gecko maintainers thought the API was not ready to go in public? > > [6] https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-platform/c/F9nrJbPX60A > > > > Re: Dominik's comment - I'd imagine one could consider it orthogonal, but > wouldn't this feature be moot if the missing glyphs remains an unsolved > problem? > > We can discuss the missing glyph cases. My point was solving the problem > by bundling new emoji fonts in chromium binary is beyond my intention and > the scope of prototyping font-variant-emoji. > Suppose your question concerns the fallback strategy where a necessary > emoji is missing. In that case, I will refer to the current fallback > behavior of displaying emoji with the variation selector and Gecko. > If you were asking if having font-variant-emoji would still be meaningful > even where the browser lacks full emoji support. Yes, it is because the > users can actively resolve the missing glyph issues by adding their emoji > font to the font-family and still want to control the emoji shape via CSS. > > Hopefully, my answer cleared up your concerns. > > > > [1] > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-variant-emoji#browser_compatibility > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 5:42:54 AM UTC-7 Sangwhan Moon wrote: > >> >> >> On 2023年07月06日 19時02分40秒 (+09:00), ChangSeok Oh wrote: >> >> *Contact emails* >> [email protected], [email protected] >> >> *Explainer* >> None >> >> *Specification* >> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-4/#font-variant-emoji-prop >> >> *Summary* >> The CSS property font-variant-emoji determines the default style used to >> display emojis. In the past, this was achieved by adding a Variation >> Selector, specifically U+FE0E for text and U+FE0F for emojis, to the >> emoji's code point. However, font-variant-emoji allows web developers to >> select the emoji representation via keywords: normal, text, emoji, and >> unicode. This property only affects emojis that are part of a Unicode emoji >> presentation sequence [1]. >> >> [1] http://www.unicode.org/emoji/charts/emoji-variants.html >> >> *Blink component* >> Blink>Fonts>Emoji >> >> *Motivation* >> Font-variant-emoji helps web developers control representation types of >> emoji (e.g., text, emoji, Unicode, etc.) via CSS. That is more >> straightforward and explainable than embedding vague code sequences into >> the content. >> >> *Initial public proposal* >> None >> >> *TAG review* >> None >> >> *TAG review status* >> Not applicable >> >> >> How so? >> >> >> >> *Risks* >> >> *Interoperability and Compatibility* >> >> *Gecko*: Positive ( >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1461589) >> >> *WebKit*: In development ( >> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=246911) >> >> Web developers: No signals >> >> Other signals: >> >> *WebView application risks* >> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >> None >> >> >> *Debuggability* >> >> *Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests?* >> Yes >> >> *Flag name on chrome://flags* >> To be decided >> >> *Finch feature name* >> None >> >> *Non-finch justification* >> None >> >> *Requires code in //chrome?* >> False >> >> *Tracking bug* >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1379029 >> >> *Estimated milestones* >> No milestones specified >> >> *Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status* >> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6566092561973248 >> >> *Links to previous Intent discussions* >> None >> >> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status. >> >> -- >> >> 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 [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/fbd14799-408d-4405-8db3-82cdaa7678b6n%40chromium.org >> >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/fbd14799-408d-4405-8db3-82cdaa7678b6n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> > -- > ChangSeok > > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/8eeafd88-a012-4963-b5c1-02b871ff082bn%40chromium.org.
