Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts] CSSFontFaceRule does not seem Web compatible

The CSS Working Group just discussed `CSSFontFaceRule isn't web-compatible`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: rollback to previous state with CSSStyleDeclaration and umerged interfaces`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dbaron> Topic: CSSFontFaceRule isn't web-compatible<br>
&lt;myles_> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/825<br>
&lt;astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/825<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: cssom for the font-face rule<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: used to be CSSStyleDeclaration with the declarations inside<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: rule.style.getPropertyValue("font-family")<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: the spec was then changed<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: instead of having a style, you would have a bunch of strings<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: e.g. rule.family<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: no browser has made this change<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: there is existing code that use the old way<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: we don't want to break that code<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: option 1: rollback to old spec text<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: option 2: get browsers to support the new spec text<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: option 3: get browsers to support both<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: option 4: make the "style" property return new type of object that looks like CSSStyleDeclaration but is simpler<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: in the old domstyle spec, cssstyledeclaration was simple<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: the weird stuff was in css2properties<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: so you could implement both, and most things did<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/css2properties/css2properties, which had a property for every property in css<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: that was then changed, and the two were merged<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: so now the merge made it more difficult to implement<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: we never implemented this merge<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: (in gecko)<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: my preferred proposal would then to be unmerge things<br>
&lt;fantasai> dbaron: our implementation doesn't include all the other stuff in font face rules, just the 6 original get/set methods<br>
&lt;fantasai> (that goes up a few lines)<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: (and rollback to use cssstyledeclaration)<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: we still need to explain what happens when we set properties that do not exist in @font-face but do in general style<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: but I don't have a strong opinion in either ways<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: but I would rather rollback the spec, and maybe we can refine after<br>
&lt;fremy> alan: so, instead of coming up with a perfect design, we rollback the improve iteratively<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: we have copied the design in font-face<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: and we have "style" property there<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: so we cannot be consistent and keep style as CSSStyleDeclaration<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: life is terrible, who names these things ;)<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: if other implementations are willing to remove css2props stuff, then it leaves less questions to be answered<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: i dont think we ever implemented these two interfaces<br>
&lt;fremy> alan: any other opinion?<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: i suspect if gecko is doing it, i guess we could do it<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: merge allows rule.style["font-family"] and unmerge does not<br>
&lt;fremy> dbaron: yes<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: webkit does not support this either<br>
&lt;dbaron> s/rule.style["font-family"]/rule.style.fontFamily/<br>
&lt;gsnedders> I thought both of those were supported interoperably?<br>
&lt;fremy> myles_: can we then try to resolve on rolling back to the unmerged version?<br>
&lt;fremy> no objection<br>
&lt;dbaron> gsnedders: rule is CSSFontFaceRule<br>
&lt;fremy> RESOLVED: rollback to previous state with CSSStyleDeclaration and umerged interfaces<br>
&lt;myles_> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1349<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/825#issuecomment-319959934 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 3 August 2017 12:51:46 UTC