Re: Strawman Promises consensus position, based on Thursday's telechat

The argument goes that we can provide a shim for Promises -> Callbacks 
in the same way that you handle prefixes below.

Gili

On 06/10/2014 10:52 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I support moving to Promises sooner rather than later.
>
> To be fair, though, just claiming "people are using the prefixed 
> variant" isn't totally representative - all they need is 
> "navigator.getUserMedia = navigator.getUserMedia || 
> navigator.webkitGetUserMedia || navigator.mozGetUserMedia;" somewhere 
> in their JS, and they can act as if it's unprefixed.  The Promises 
> changeover will be a bit more impactful.
>
> In the changes we've made to Web Audio, the unprefixing was actually 
> pretty painless; the removal of old enumerated types, old method 
> names, etc., was a lot more problematic, since in some cases it 
> required changing logic (particularly with the removal of the 
> synchronous decoding API).
>
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl 
> <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>> wrote:
>
>     On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com
>     <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
>     > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Anne van Kesteren
>     <annevk@annevk.nl <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>> wrote:
>     >> Can someone explain to me what the point of not deprecating a
>     >> known-bad-thing is?
>     >
>     > There's not universal agreement that it's bad and people are
>     actually
>     > using it.
>
>     Every single new API is using promises. Can you provide evidence to
>     the contrary outside this WG?
>
>     And again, people are using the prefixed variant. Some migration will
>     have to happen.
>
>
>     --
>     https://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>