Re: Web MIDI polyfill

Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
On Dec 13, 2012 3:35 PM, "Clint Hill" <clint.hill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There's a lot to consider in that sentiment. It's a lot like File system
access (sandboxing argument) and using a camera with your phone in a web
app is hanging in the balance. Doesn't require a plugin, just UA
implementation.
>
> I believe that there's more in this example that is necessary for UA
extension and not necessary for HTML/CSS/JavaScript. And it would be
interesting to me, to see how this resolves inside ChromeOS or inside
FirefoxOS.
>
> However, I've been persuaded with this thread. I could support the notion
that a plugin is an effective way to drive support for a prollyfill. As
long as that's the result.
>
> Maybe the hesitation I had was due to an incomplete mission statement for
the prollyfill.org group - maybe this could be articulated somehow?
>

Yes, Clint, that is exactly what I was saying... I don't take a few of us
as having a say for the whole group, are there any naysayers who think that
this sort of thing has no place in the preferred lifecycle (in the case of
really low level apis - again, leaving aside whether this instance fits the
bill for a moment) of web standardizarion we are articulating?

I am pretty sold that I think it might be... we just need to articulate
that.

Ps.  I am psyched to have your thoughts Chris, thanks for jumping in.

>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
>
>>  In short, the Web MIDI API exposes hardware that you just don't get
access to anywhere else in the web platform today - so it requires a plugin
at the moment.
>
>