New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 792271 link

Starred by 2 users

Issue metadata

Status: Duplicate
Merged: issue 627143
Owner:
Closed: Dec 2017
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Linux , Windows , Mac
Pri: 1
Type: Bug-Regression



Sign in to add a comment

@font-face regression; src: local('Segoe UI') + font-weight doesn't work anymore

Reported by julie...@gmail.com, Dec 6 2017

Issue description

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/62.0.3202.94 Safari/537.36

Example URL:
https://jsfiddle.net/julienv3/1u598pbx/

Steps to reproduce the problem:
https://jsfiddle.net/julienv3/1u598pbx/
Compare Chrome 61 to 62.

What is the expected behavior?

What went wrong?
Regression as shown in the jsfiddle, attached screenshots.

Does it occur on multiple sites: Yes

Is it a problem with a plugin? No 

Did this work before? Yes 61, confirmed working on 61.0.3163.79

Does this work in other browsers? Yes

Chrome version: 62.0.3202.94  Channel: stable
OS Version: 10.0
Flash Version:
 
font-face chrome 62 regression.png
311 KB View Download
Components: -Blink Blink>Fonts
Labels: Needs-Bisect

Comment 3 by e...@chromium.org, Dec 6 2017

Labels: -Pri-2 Pri-1
Owner: drott@chromium.org
Status: Assigned (was: Unconfirmed)
Labels: -Type-Bug -Needs-Bisect hasbisect-per-revision Triaged-ET M-65 Needs-Triage-M62 OS-Linux OS-Mac Type-Bug-Regression
Able to reproduce the issue on Windows 10, mac 10.12.6 and Ubuntu 14.04 using chrome reported version #62.0.3202.94 and latest canary #65.0.3286.0.

Bisect Information:
=====================
Good build: 62.0.3166.0    Revision(489161)
Bad Build : 62.0.3167.0    Revision(489499)

Change Log URL: 
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/9e73c1f7187efe7e4514f24dafbe12f7a586dac4..ad9b5da819de07237b1986dc59ca06a792467728

From the above change log suspecting below change
Change-Id: I6dcf0e541799e5e3d746f8160d49e821ca6ca8e9
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/565238

drott@ - Could you please check whether this is caused with respect to your change, if not please help us in assigning it to the right owner.

Thanks...!!
Cc: ligim...@chromium.org
Labels: RegressedIn-62 ReleaseBlock-Stable Target-65 FoundIn-64 FoundIn-65 FoundIn-63
This is a recent regression, can we get a fix during M65 time frame?

Comment 6 by drott@chromium.org, Dec 15 2017

Labels: -ReleaseBlock-Stable
Mergedinto: 627143
Status: Duplicate (was: Assigned)
julienv@, thank you for the report. It is true that we have an issue with matching local() correctly, for details please see issue 627143.

In Chrome, right now the only working standards-compliant way to select Segoe UI weight variants is by specifying a font-family in the style rule, e.g.:
font-family: Segoe UI Black;

You may use this as a workaround for the time being until we fix 627143.


The variant:

@font-face {
...
src: local(Segoe UI Black);
}

does not work in Chrome at the moment after we fixed  issue 765980  where font-family: Roboto was incorrectly matched against "Roboto Bold", this is CL https://codereview.chromium.org/2721613002 - we cannot revert this CL as this will reintroduce the Roboto matching issue.

The reason this used to work is incorrect behavior in Chrome: We used to take the argument to local(), e.g. xyz in local(xyz) and use this for matching against font family names, not font postscript names.

Also, looking at your examples, strictly speaking the correct way to reference Segoe UI Bold in local() would be to use src: local(SegoeUIBlack); as this is the Postscript Name of the Segoe UI Black (namerecord id 6) in the name table, even though FF and Edge on Windows do accept local(Segoe UI Black) for reasons I do not know.

ligimole@, issue 627143 requires a larger set of work for fixing - so unfortunately I do not expect it to get fixed in the M65 timeframe.

Sign in to add a comment