W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [css3-fonts][cssom] proposal for revised definition of CSSFontFaceRule

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:09:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAERejNZXJJAr+u73S+KbcY62X8hOApx_GQb_TBjQb0J=8k734Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> > On 9/19/12 9:16 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >> sorry, i meant to remove item(index); but this brings up the question of
> >> whether enumeration of properties, e.g., via "for (propertyName in
> >> rule.descriptors)" is sufficient or not
> >
> > What use cases are we trying to support?
> >
> > "for .. in" enumeration will enumerate all sorts of stuff in addition to
> the
> > descriptor names...
>
> You can use hasOwnProperty to fix that.  for-of loops fix it for you
> automatically, and they've been approved for Harmony for some time.
>
> So, yes, I think enumeration of properties is sufficient, unless we
> can establish any good use-cases for something more complicated.
>

Yes, enumeration is the use-case. And of course enumerating the descriptors
you should be able to just get either their camelCased names or their
property name representation. Though the descriptors should be accessible
through both notations. Or there should be a mapping between both notations.

Sebastian
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 06:10:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT