- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:00:29 +0900
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fqsJk6vERGqqwt8-k9JQAyo=+6=kXM==_7stKAgAQRRA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks. I know what futures/promises are and used them, along with continuation passing, in Scheme and Lisp programming many years ago. I have nothing against them as a mechanism for supporting asynchronous programming. But unfortunately, your article doesn't answer the questions I posed, such as "which version of ECMAScript will be required to obtain this features?" ES5.1 (I think not); ES6 (I also don't think so); ES7 (maybe?). If this is true, then CSS FontLoad and Events effectively becomes gated by ES7 (or later). Since it appears that use of futures/promises actually provides ZERO additional functionality to CSS FontLoad et al, this seems like a very high price to pay (in terms of schedule and implementation uncertainty) to incidentally endorse a useful, but new (future?) feature. If this is an accurate description of the facts, then I expect that Cox will register an objection to a FPWD and subsequent publishing steps that relies up Futures/Promises. Cox believes it important to get this functionality implemented and published in an expedient manner and that any non-trivial delays in schedule caused by use of a future ES7 or later feature will be detrimental to this goal. Regards, Glenn On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 Saturday, 8 June 2013 00:01:17 UTC