- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:00 +0000
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 4/3/16, 3:44 PM, "Geoffrey Sneddon" <me@gsnedders.com> wrote: >On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: >> I think part of the problem here is that check() is a terrible name for a function, since >> it’s hard to know what the return value means. Currently, it means “font is available or >> additional loads won’t do anything”, but flipping this around allows the return value to mean >> “additional load is required”, so the function could be better named as: >> >> document.fonts.requiresLoad(…) >> >> or >> >> document.fonts.requiresAdditionalLoad(...) >> >> These make it clearer that no additional loads are going to help for a garbage font name. > >Very strongly agree that the name is a large part of the trouble, as >what is it checking? I'd guess whether fonts already loaded have all >characters in "text" (it's second arg) from the general behaviour, >which tends towards returning false when no font is loaded. > >I presume the ship has long since sailed for renaming it, though… :( Has it? Could we deprecate check() in favor of a better-named function? Would anyone who already has check() implemented object to this? Thanks, Alan
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 00:54:30 UTC