- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:33:26 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > 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. I'm fairly strongly opposed to making case-by-case edits to things that look like sets; it's a footgun for authors to have to remember precisely which subset of Set/Map functionality a particular interface chose to copy, particularly as it would vary across interfaces if this became standard practice. I'm also quite unhappy with the "copy the entire Set/Map interface into everything that wants to be Set/Map-like", but I consider that a bug on JS/WebIDL's end. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 21:34:17 UTC