W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Status of Promise's in gUM discussion

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 06:54:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPyqkF8g=f1LZRsQtkLTDixCUHKiJARnySpJGSjiHVZpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>

I don't think this is an accurate summary of the situation.

When I proposed the compromise in your CfC, it was intended as a package
I certainly am not OK with moving to promises on these APIs without a
compatibility story as well. I suspect that others feel the same.

If you want to declare consensus on just the points you have here, you need
to do a separate consensus call on adding promises *regardless* of backwards


On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Based on the feedback given to the Strawman consensus position mail [1],
> it seems that there is clear consensus to move to promises for
> * navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia
> * applyConstraints
> * enumerateDevices
> and we think the editors can start updating the draft to reflect this.
> The discussion has not really settled on how to handle backwards
> compatibility with the callbacks based getUserMedia call on navigator.
> We'll see if any consensus can be discerned in the coming couple of
> days, if not we'll take a chair's decision on this part.
> Stefan for the chairs
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2014Oct/0033.html
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 13:55:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:50 UTC