- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:31:06 +1000
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
John Daggett: > Tab Atkins wrote: > > > Whether check() should be answering "is a load needed?" or "is > > everything you might need to render available?" is the question at > > hand; you can't just assume it. Tab, I think it would be helpful if you could detail all the ways that you envisage check() being used, because it seems like the discussion here might be pre-supposing what it’s good for and it’s difficult to evaluate without knowing this. John’s argument below that “is everything you might need to render available” is not a question that check() can answer makes sense to me. In which case, getting to what the precise question that check() answers, and what you would then use that answer to do, should help the discussion along. Thanks, Cameron > > We got feedback from early users that the former question yields > > confusing answers in degenerate cases; misspelling a font name would > > return true, same as correctly spelling the font and having it loaded. > > Apparently people prefer to ask the latter question, so I adjusted the > > degenerate case answer to match. > > To be clear, these API's in no way provide answers to "is everything you > might need to render available?", since system fallback can occur with any > fontlist. Whether system fallback occurs or not does not matter for the > load/check use cases. What matters is whether all possible fonts have > loaded or not. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 06:31:40 UTC