W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Tests with embedding, including of font resource with a @font-face rule

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>
Message-ID: <1d6f6d369dd3985516d50e62dacde768@gtalbot.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:22 UTC