W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Use of Futures/Promises in CSS Font Face APIs

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:40:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jcUnrT4w4_i89KdTHx9EUVvcDfNtLe8bReiHDRkRW7MJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Jun 7, 2013 9:37 AM, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
> During today's presentation of an alternative API for CSS FontLoader,
reference was made to so-called "Futures" or "Promises". I would like to
know:
>
> (1) what material improvement is afforded to this alternative when
compared with the existing (non-Futures) API proposal? that is, what new or
different behavior or functionality is offered by using "Futures"?
>
> (2) where is the formal definition of a Futures API or functionality that
would become a normative dependency were the "Futures" version of the
FontLoader API adopted?
>
> (3) what other W3C APIs under active development (or complete) makes use
of said "Futures" APIs?
>
> (4) does the proposed use of Futures create a dependency on a newer
version of ECMAScript than is currently assumed by HTML (which is 5.1)?
>
> (5) what is the expected impact on schedule for reaching a FPWD (or LC)
if this alternative "Futures" approach is followed?

Some answers here http://infrequently.org/2013/06/sfuturepromiseg/
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 13:41:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 7 June 2013 13:41:03 UTC