I understand your argument, I'm just not convinced. I leave it to the chairs to decide on the process for resolving this. -Ekr On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: > If we start with the assumption that promises are a good idea, then I > don't see how there isn't an advantage here. Promises offer a standard > language to talk about asynchronous behavior, both for the user and the > specification [1]. Example: [2] > > Given the amount of asynchronous behavior in our specs (this one and ones > coming), I think ignoring promises now would be a mistake. We have an > opportunity here to come out consistent in all our API's going forward, > including Giri's ImageCapture. > > .: Jan-Ivar :. > > [1] > https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-guide/blob/master/README.md#note-asynchronous-steps-explicitly > > [2] > http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jan-ivar/mediacapture-main/compromises/getusermedia.html#widl-MediaDevices-enumerateDevices-Promise-sequence--MediaDeviceInfo > > > On 9/13/14 5:26 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Again, I don't see any significant advantage here. > > -Ekr > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> > wrote: > >> On 9/13/14 12:25 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: >> >>> If we find that there is consensus to add Promises at this stage, this >>> is a really good way forward to avoid breaking existing apps. >>> >> >> Here's a pull-request for that: >> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/pull/18 >> >> .: Jan-Ivar :. >> >> > >
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2014 16:01:36 UTC