- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 20:20:14 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDCtTpAqWLEzLHGTNzo+mONTdYTB6JoMyj4B6PEJQKS0og@mail.gmail.com>
Here is the IDL for promises: https://github.com/slightlyoff/Promises/blob/master/Promise.idl It doesn't look like there's a need for new ECMAScript features. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > 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 03:20:41 UTC