- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 19:32:49 -0500
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
- Cc: Public CSS Test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
Le 2017-02-17 12:07, Geoffrey Sneddon a écrit : > As a general aside, given we're at a point where merging csswg-test > into web-platform-tests is a matter of weeks in all probability, > policy things like this are probably best done on public-test-infra > (which I think has in theory included CSS all along? I have no real > idea). > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Gérard Talbot > <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote: >> We have a bunch of tests, scattered in several test suites, which >> require a >> special, unique font (besides Ahem font) to use, to declare in such >> tests. I >> am trying to find the best way to declare @font-face in those tests. >> Right >> now, there is no guidelines that we are all following. I would like >> this to >> be standardized, normalized. We could therefore remove, drop use of >> the font >> flag (I can not remember if the font flag is supposed to be removed >> anyway >> from now on). > > The font flag wasn't supposed to die (there are tests that can't use > @font-face, especially some of those testing font selection). > >> Is declaring the .woff equivalent sufficient? I do not think so, >> furthermore >> if the .woff filesize is rather big. > > I think WOFF suffices; I don't think anyone is likely to run the CSS > tests on anything that doesn't support WOFF at this point? (The policy > in general for web-platform-tests has been to stick to features that > the latest release of every major browser supports; WOFF is *well* > beyond that point, having reached it in 2011.) Okay. AntennaHouse 6.4 and Prince 11 claim they support WOFF standard. > >> Here's what I propose, in a real test >> >> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/font-face-mplus-1p-regular-test.html >> >> , involving a font face that we are already using in a dozen tests: >> >> @font-face >> { >> font-family: "M+ 1p"; >> src: local("M+ 1p") , /* first try to use locally available and >> installed M+ 1p font */ >> url("support/mplus-1p-regular.woff") format("woff") , /* >> otherwise >> download its woff equivalent */ >> url("support/mplus-1p-regular.ttf") format ("truetype") ; /* >> otherwise >> use its TrueType font */ >> >> /* filesize of mplus-1p-regular.woff: 803300 bytes (784.5 >> KiloBytes) >> */ >> >> /* filesize of mplus-1p-regular.ttf : 1571848 bytes (1.5 >> MegaBytes) */ >> >> /* >> mplus-1p-regular.ttf can be downloaded at, from >> >> http://mplus-webfonts.osdn.jp/ >> */ >> } >> >> So, local would be first, .woff would be 2nd and then the font itself. >> The >> order between 2nd and 3rd is an ascending filesize order. And a link >> to >> download and install the font would be provided in a /* comment */ : >> that >> way, we would encourage fetching of locally installed font, which is >> always >> faster. >> >> I am looking for comments, feedback here. > > One problem (and this isn't hypothetical: this caused problems in > Opera's CI years ago) is different versions of fonts causing issues, > and that is inherently worse with locally installed fonts. (The main > thing I remember causing problems were slight changes to metrics, > FWIW; obviously rare, but it does happen.) As such, I have a > preference *against* including local fallbacks. Okay. > I also don't think we need a link to download the font: we should have > the specific version of the font we rely on in the repository Thank you for your feedback on this issue. I have adjusted a few tests according to your comments. With regards to having the specific version of the font on which we rely and with regards to mplus-1p-regular.woff: http://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/0e0308f4c88b > (which > obviously means it has been licensed such that we can redistribute it, > but we shouldn't be relying on any non-free licenses anyway). > > This also reminds me that the build system means we can't just link to > everything in "/font" but need relative URLs in support, which means > we need fonts duplicated all over the place, ergh. There are different versions of the Ahem font in the repository... but, right now, this is not causing any problems. Gérard -- Test Format Guidelines http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html Test Style Guidelines http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html Test Templates http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html CSS Naming Guidelines http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html Test Review Checklist http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html CSS Metadata http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2017 00:33:28 UTC