- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:37:48 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins wrote: >> Hmmm, I think we should go the other way. Have load() return a promise >> and leave ready() as it was. The ready() method is the only way to >> passively observe individual font loads using Promises (e.g. a user >> altering a textfield may induce the loading of a fallback font). > > Is there a reason to passively observe an individual font using > promises? I can't think of any good ones, and the lack can be hacked > around by using the events. Well, I don't think we should try and predict exactly when authors would use promises vs. when they would use events. I can imagine scenarios where they would use a mixture of font preloading and lazy loading, especially if situations with user-driven content. If the promises are used to respond to font availability then I don't think it makes sense to distinguish active loads vs. passive loads. So I think the ready() method makes sense and it makes the FontFace interface match FontFaceSet interface which is a good thing. >>> Construction doesn't mention anything about automatically adding it >>> to the document's font source, so it doesn't do so. >> >> I think the spec should state that explicitly. > > Done. Great! Were you going to push the changes? Cheers, John Daggett
Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 00:38:16 UTC