Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Request to review Image Decode API (#182)

Discussed at TAG F2F Nice edition.  We are still concerned about naming.  Principally:

* [Earlier](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/182#issuecomment-313493800) @domenic acknowledged the utility of future additions to the platform that might provide greater granularity, and if that were done, then it would make sense for a method called `decode` to *just do decoding* and not the other stuff which we are currently bundling into this method. Doesn't claiming the method name now potentially leave us with a more difficult naming issue in future?
* From a developer perspective, it seems like the prior suggestion of `ensureReady()` or `ready()` is actually a better description of what this method does, and we tend to favour that over describing the current proposal as 'decode'.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/182#issuecomment-332247749