On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 4:02:42 AM UTC+5:30, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> As of this week, for the mozilla-61 cycle, I plan to turn support for
> OpenType Font Variations on by default.
>
> It has been developed behind the layout.css.font-variations.enabled and
>
On 13/05/2018 14:01, rosesharon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 3:32:42 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Kew wrote:
As of this week, for the mozilla-61 cycle, I plan to turn support for
OpenType Font Variations on by default.
It has been developed behind the
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 3:32:42 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> As of this week, for the mozilla-61 cycle, I plan to turn support for
> OpenType Font Variations on by default.
>
> It has been developed behind the layout.css.font-variations.enabled and
>
Hi Jonathan,
This led me to believe something isn't completely hooked up on
> further experimentation, though, I find that it does work as expected if
> the font is loaded from a @font-face resource with the appropriate
> descriptors. So this seems to be only a limitation for installed fonts?
On 21/03/2018 08:03, dr...@chromium.org wrote:
font-{weight,stretch,style} are parsed and hooked up to the variable fonts
rasterization backend since we initially shipped OpenType Variations in M62. I
implemented this in Blink, so if you are observing any issues, mind sharing
them? I'd be
Hi Jonathan,
On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 1:16:42 PM UTC+2, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> (Note that Blink also hasn't fully implemented this, at least judging by
> testing of Chrome stable: they have done the CSS parsing extensions, but
> not hooked it up to the rendering side. Maybe that's in
On 20/03/2018 20:50, gwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Will 61 bring support for font-optical-sizing as well?
Yes; it's behind the same pref as font-variation-settings, so the two
properties will be enabled together.
___
dev-platform mailing list
On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 4:39:36 AM UTC-7, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> On 19/03/2018 22:42, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> > Is there something with a little more detail about how our (a)
> > feature set and (b) platform support compares with what other
> > engines are shipping?
>
> That sounds like
On 19/03/2018 22:42, L. David Baron wrote:
Is there something with a little more detail about how our (a)
feature set and (b) platform support compares with what other
engines are shipping?
That sounds like it could be a worthwhile blog post somewhere
In brief: everyone supports
On 03/20/2018 11:22 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:> There are a handful of
tests now in
> web-platform/tests/css/css-fonts/variations, and there a bunch more
> currently in preparation (e.g. see
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1436588).
There's also
On 20/03/2018 09:54, James Graham wrote:
On 19/03/2018 22:32, Jonathan Kew wrote:
As of this week, for the mozilla-61 cycle, I plan to turn support for
OpenType Font Variations on by default.
It has been developed behind the layout.css.font-variations.enabled
and
On 19/03/2018 22:32, Jonathan Kew wrote:
As of this week, for the mozilla-61 cycle, I plan to turn support for
OpenType Font Variations on by default.
It has been developed behind the layout.css.font-variations.enabled and
gfx.downloadable_fonts.keep_variation_tables preferences.
Other UAs
On Monday 2018-03-19 22:32 +, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> As of this week, for the mozilla-61 cycle, I plan to turn support for
> OpenType Font Variations on by default.
>
> It has been developed behind the layout.css.font-variations.enabled and
> gfx.downloadable_fonts.keep_variation_tables
As of this week, for the mozilla-61 cycle, I plan to turn support for
OpenType Font Variations on by default.
It has been developed behind the layout.css.font-variations.enabled and
gfx.downloadable_fonts.keep_variation_tables preferences.
Other UAs shipping this or intending to ship it
14 matches
Mail list logo
