- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:02:56 -0700
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Before the spec was change to make FontFaceSet setlike, there were a few > requirements on how the FontFace objects in a FontFaceSet were to be > maintained. We need to add some of these back. Thanks for catching that I dropped these! > 1. It used to be required that CSS-connected FontFace objects all > appeared before the other FontFace objects in a FontFaceSet. Now there > is no such requirement. It is required that they are kept in document > order, but doesn’t say anything about how they are placed relative to > the other FontFaces. Done, ordering restored. > 2. Calling FontFaceSet.add() with a CSS-connected FontFace object used > to throw an InvalidModificationError. I don’t think there’s a good > reason to allow CSS-connected FontFaces in multiple FontFaceSets. So > how about we throw in that situation, and ignore it if you try to add a > CSS-connected FontFace to the FontFaceSet it is already in (which is the > behaviour of a standard Set’s add method). Done. > 3. Similarly, FontFaceSet.delete() used to throw when trying to remove a > CSS-connected FontFace. Whether an exception is thrown or the request > is ignored, I don’t particularly mind. Ignoring the request is probably > implied by the requirement to keep all CSS-connected FontFaces in there > by §4.2, but should be made explicit somewhere. That would be > consistent with having clear() not throw because it is attempting to > remove the CSS-connected entries, too. Done, it's specced as a no-op. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 23:03:45 UTC