Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Blockbase: Defer to Jetpack Fonts #6765

Closed
pbking opened this issue Dec 6, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #6777
Closed

Blockbase: Defer to Jetpack Fonts #6765

pbking opened this issue Dec 6, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #6777
Assignees

Comments

@pbking
Copy link
Contributor

pbking commented Dec 6, 2022

Recently wpcom has started proxying fonts from google fonts API. This may be enough to consider using Jetpack Fonts (which supplies fonts from there) to be used in Blockbase themes.

To do so Blockbase will need to be changed to check for Jetpack Fonts Module and, if active, not attempt to supply it's own font collection.

Currently the font collection is supplied in theme.json though and that is processed automatically so this may also require Blockbase to supply those fonts in a more sophisticated way (as a Font Provider as was originally intended). It may be that the technical blockers that originally prevented that have since been dealt with (I can't recall offhand what exactly those where).

This task is mostly a prompt to dig into this to see if this is possible.

@jffng
Copy link
Contributor

jffng commented Dec 19, 2022

Re-opening in case we want to revisit the approach.

@simison
Copy link
Member

simison commented Dec 30, 2022

Question: what happens without all the disabling/enabling/checking functionality that the theme had before and the new PRs, and if fonts are simply defined in theme.json and no PHP? Would fonts appear as duplicates, would something break, or would they work fine along side Jetpack? Would either theme or plugin take a presedence when there's identical font name?

@pbking
Copy link
Contributor Author

pbking commented Mar 3, 2023

This is addressed in #6831

Closing

@pbking pbking closed this as completed Mar 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants