> this seems contradicting to me Not at all. The pref `layout.css.font-visibility.resistFingerprinting` controlling RFP's level was removed in Bug 1838415. The remaining prefs ( `layout.css.font-visibility.private`, `layout.css.font-visibility.standard`, `layout.css.font-visibility.trackingprotection` **have never controlled RFP's font vis**. The level is/was determined in normal windows as first applicable: RFP over TP over Standard and in Private Browsing as the most restrictive between normal and private. This is now a little hand wavy, what with FPP and ETP etc - wait and see how it shakes out. As far as I'm concerned this is working as intended, and it actually hardens RFP's level: which works very well in windows10+ and mac (good script coverage with default system fonts)
Bug 1850275 Comment 5 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> this seems contradicting to me Not at all. The pref `layout.css.font-visibility.resistFingerprinting` controlling RFP's level was removed in Bug 1838415. The remaining prefs ( `layout.css.font-visibility.private`, `layout.css.font-visibility.standard`, `layout.css.font-visibility.trackingprotection` **have never controlled RFP's font vis**. The level is/was determined in normal windows as first applicable: RFP over TP over Standard and in Private Browsing as the most restrictive between normal and private. This is now a little hand wavy, what with FPP and ETP etc - wait and see how it shakes out. As far as I'm concerned this is working as intended, ~~and it actually hardens RFP's level~~ edit: to change RFP levels you need to use RFPTargets IIUIC