- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:12:11 +1000
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I'm uneasy about FontFaceSet including all of the things that are on Set. I'm happy to keep some of them, and to have them be compatible with Set in case we ever work out how to really subclass Set. I'm not keen about duplicating the entire Set API on every set-like interface we come up with until we figure that problem out. So I feel like we should go with the absolute minimum to allow the inspection and manipulation of the FontFaceSet for now. add and delete are obviously useful and necessary. clear I am happy with too. To be able to get to the items in the FontFaceSet, and not force the author to keep a parallel Set/Array, the iterator looks good. I'm on the fence about has -- it's simple, and would let you avoid doing `[...document.fonts].indexOf(face) != -1`, but on the other hand I'm not really sure when you would need to know if a given FontFace has been inserted. I guess it's simple enough to keep. I don't think it's useful to have entries, keys and values in there. I don't see how size is useful either. forEach is a bit complicated. The current definition is just to forward to the [[ContainedFonts]] Set, but that won't work if you expect the third argument to the callback to be the FontFaceSet rather than the [[ContainedFonts]] Set. Why not just leave it to the author to do `[...document.fonts].forEach(...)` if they really want to iterate over the FontFaces?
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 03:10:39 UTC