- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:49:32 +0200
- To: Matthew Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>
- Cc: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Matthew Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com> wrote: > Certainly. As I understand it, the reasons for reusing appendStream() rather > than adding appendResponse() to MSE are generally two-fold: > a) MSE already has appendStream(). In combination with the other changes to > Streams API, Fetch, and Mixed Content specs, as well as the known work to > update MSE spec to use ReadableByteStream > (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27239), the scope of further > changes to existing MSE appendStream() spec are expected to be significantly > less than adding a distinct appendResponse() method to MSE. > b) We think these other specs (Streams API, Fetch, Mixed Content) are likely > to incorporate these changes anyway. Well, except now you make yourself depend on some definition of an opaque stream object which nobody has defined yet. Perhaps we should, but that will take longer and won't be less work (though maybe less work long term). -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 07:49:57 UTC