- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 17:52:00 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Separately, FontFace.loaded seems to fulfill the same purpose as >>>>> FontFaceSet.ready(). I.e. both indicate that the object is done >>>>> loading/parsing/applying its data. It seems more consistent if they >>>>> had the same name, and if both were either an attribute or both were a >>>>> function. >>>> >>>> No, the two do completely different (but related) things. Why do you >>>> think they're identical? One fulfills when a *particular* FontFace >>>> object finishes loading, the other repeatedly fulfills whenever the >>>> set of loading fonts goes from non-zero to zero. >>> >>> Semantically they both indicate "the async processing that this object >>> was doing is done". Yes, in one instance it just signals that a given >>> FontFace instance is ready to be used, in the other that the full >>> FontFaceSet is ready. Putting the properties on different objects is >>> enough to indicate that, the difference in name doesn't seem >>> important? >> >> The loaded/ready distinction exists elsewhere, too. Using .loaded for >> FontFaceSet is incorrect, since in many cases not all of the fonts in >> the set will be loaded. > > Sure, but would using .ready() for FontFace be wrong? Depends on how we end up designing the loaded/ready duo. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 00:52:52 UTC