W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2014

Re: [css-font-loading] feedback

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:44:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCveXyQD_hvbjiZHSYaf+7AdLONHw4tj2ia4pV9DMa55A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>>> Well, you're changing the status but can that actually be observed
>>> somehow? If not, why are you changing the status? Changing the status
>>> of something and making that observable typically requires queuing a
>>> task, unless you use a promise, but in that case you can only change
>>> the status once, by resolving the promise.
>> I'm not sure what you're talking about here, so I've pinged you on
>> IRC.  Hopefully we can resolve it better there.
> Okay. If people want to follow along,
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20140527#l-668 and
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20140528

The upshot is that async portions of algos can run at any time, and
may be run in separate threads/processes, so if you just make an
observable change, like I'm currently doing, it might happen in the
middle of a block of author code, violating JS's run-to-completion

Instead, any observable changes have to be made in a synchronous block
that is explicitly queued as a task, so it definitely happens between
author blocks.

This is now documented on our wiki at
<http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/async-algos>, so anyone can reference it
the next time they need to write an asynchronous algorithm.

>>> Well, you could look at how http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-throw
>>> does it...
>> I was specifically looking for something other than "remember to check
>> this specific spec to see how it does it".  ^_^  Like, CSS puts some
>> spec-authoring guidance on its wiki
>> <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec#coordination-between-specifications>.
>> Something similar (even in our wiki - if you don't have an account,
>> just send me some guidance and I can add it myself) would be great.
> Well, DOM defines DOMException at the moment so it would be *the*
> specification to check for usage.
> And in particular what I pointed you to is exactly what you want to do
> here. Reject with a DOMException object whose name is x, message is
> some user agent-defined value, and code is set per the table.

That's what I want to do, yes, but not what I want to type.  Can we
add a prose hook somewhere that defines "reject with a FooError
exception" as the above?  You mention WebIDL maybe doing this, but I'd
think it appropriate for DOM to do it too.

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 19:45:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:43 UTC