Alex, I agree with Justin on this. I don’t see why numeric font weights is different than backgroundImage for example. Not every app uses backgroundImage, but it should work if used. The same should be for numeric font weights considering fontWeight is a supported style.
If anything, I could hear an argument that the simplest implementation should be even simpler than it currently is and only handle strings which could be used without conversion. The “simplest useful implementation” should contain Justin’s fix. Harbs > On Mar 15, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/14/17, 11:34 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Looking through this thread I can’t see that consensus has been reached >> to revert this change, in fact it seems to be towards keeping the change >> and renaming the file. > > In the end, some files will contain your change. But for now, let's > please let SimpleCSSStyleImpl retain its simplicity until we agree on a > different naming scheme. > >> >> IMO Alex you need to convince some others or me that this change should >> be reverted. Fixing broken broken support on the JS side doesn’t seem >> anti PAYG to me and saying we should only support AS features seem to be >> against the ideals of having a cross-platform framework. > > We are not saying we only support AS features. We are saying PAYG. Some > implementations will only support AS in a straightforward way, and others > will do more work to implement more features or not implement full > fidelity. Small amounts of code build up to bigger amounts of code. > There is no one set of components that folks must use. > > Clearly, it must be possible to create good apps without numeric font > weight since most everyone on this list has created a Flash-based Flex app > and could not use numeric font weight. So, that means to me that numeric > font weight doesn't belong in the simplest or most basic implementation. > > Thanks, > -Alex >
