Re: [font-load-events] comments on new promises-based draft

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM, John Daggett <> wrote:
> Tab Atkins wrote:
>>> For each of the code examples below, the initial state is that of a
>>> page containing a single stylesheet with a single @font-face rule
>>> and no other declarations:
>> All of these are actually answered in the spec, though some of them
>> are of the "the spec says nothing because you *do* nothing" variety.
> No, sorry, it doesn't.  The spec is currently in a "read the tea
> leaves" state, with a mixture of facts and partial descriptions of
> behavior.  That's fine, it's a working draft, par for the course.  But
> "all of these are actually answered" and "fully spelled out" aren't
> accurate.

These are really great comments!  I'll reply again as I address them
with edits; I just wanted to get in acknowledgement and thanks email
before the meeting started. ^_^

> By the way, you should take a look at the section markers in the
> WebIDL spec [4], they are simple and unobtrusive and don't litter the page
> with noisy symbols as bikeshed-authored specs do now.  If you don't have
> time to work on the change, I'll try and do it next week.

*Please* bring up your comments on spec styling in a separate thread.
I don't want to clutter this thread with discussion, and people who
would be interested in styling have a good chance of skipping this

(I used webidl styling earlier, but figured that hover-based link
discovery was hostile to non-hover-capable things like phones, which
are precisely the kinds of things where it's most difficult to figure
out the id for something.)


Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 07:33:49 UTC