- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:44:56 +0200
- To: "Olivier Thereaux" <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, "Ehsan Akhgari" <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Marcus Geelnard" <mage@opera.com>, "Chris Rogers" <crogers@google.com>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:43:51 +0200, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com> wrote: >> From the perspective of Gecko as an implementer, I was really concerned > about these obsolete names in the spec, as have already started to hear > complaints about not supporting them in Firefox. Note that these are all > style changes, and my position regarding backwards incompatible changes > regarding things that actually mean a change in the functionality > supported > would be different. But, given the fact that WebKit which was the only > other engine that was supporting Web Audio is unwilling to make backwards > incomoatble changes with regards to these names (and I think Blinks > adopts > the same position), I don't believe that we are ever going to win this > fight with evangelizing to websites using the new names because the > majority of the Web Audio content is only ever tested against > WebKit/Blink, > and most web developers learning about Web Audio will be reading outdated > material that was written around the time of the initial Web Audio > launch, > which are all using the old names. Therefore, we agreed that the best > way > forward in order to get interoperable implementations is to require > support > for the obsolete names under the title of alternate names. So if implementors are not going to remove the old names, that leaves two options: 1) Support both old and new names. 2) Support only the old names. Has (2) been seriously considered? I think it is better to have one set of ugly names than one set of ugly names plus another set of less ugly names. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 05:45:28 UTC