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

On 10/6/14 10:39, cowwoc wrote:
> On 06/10/2014 11:36 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> On 10/6/14 10:14, cowwoc wrote:
>> >> navigator.getUserMedia = navigator.getUserMedia || 
>> navigator.webkitGetUserMedia || navigator.mozGetUserMedia;
>> ...
>>> The argument goes that we can provide a shim for Promises -> 
>>> Callbacks in the same way that you handle prefixes below.
>>
>> There's a broad difference between "can be done" and "is already 
>> done, nearly universally."
>
> I don't understand your reasoning. We don't have to wait for the shim 
> to exist to decide on whether it's worthwhile going down that route. 
> Are you implying that there would be major difficulties in 
> implementing this?

No -- I'm saying that there is a significant corpus of code on the web, 
some as old as 18 months or more, that already uses the construct Chris 
describes. If Chrome and Firefox pull the prefix off of gUM today, none 
of that breaks.

On the other hand, approximately zero percent of this code has the shim 
you mention. It's a materially different argument that code *can be made 
to work* with a change than it is to say that code *will seamlessly 
work* with a change.

Unprefixing will seamlessly work.

The same cannot be said for the shim you mention because it's not in 
deployed code.

/a