Re: WaveShaperNode.curve

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Frederick Umminger <
frederick.umminger@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't get this backward compatibility limitation. The WebAudio API is
> not a standard yet.  Any developer writing to the API is knowingly writing
> to something not yet standardized.
>

Unfortunately that's a bad assumption. Many developers writing to the API
have simply been told it's the future and they should use it.


> Why is there any duty at all not to break their code?
>

If person A writes bad code and user B tries it in browsers C and D and it
works in browser C but not D, then B blames D, not A. That, not "duty", is
the incentive for D to ensure A's code works.

If you don't want your code broken, you act as a responsible developer and
> write to the standardized APIs, not the APIs that are explicitly
> experimental and under development. If you write to an experimental API and
> then complain because your code broke, then you are just a big cry-baby.
>

Whatever you want to call them, they're still a problem for browser D.

By accepting this constraint of backwards compatibility, we are crippling
> the WebAudio API by limiting it to whatever was first implemented. That is
> not the way the standards process is supposed to work. The implementations
> are supposed to allow explorations of the proposed APIs in real-word
> scenarios in order to ensure their quality before they become solidified
> into an immutable standard. It seems to me we are doing this exactly
> backwards, and baking in known flaws.
>

Indeed.

Rob
-- 
q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq
qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq
qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq
qdqoq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qaqrqeq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qyqoquq,q
qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq
qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qdqoq qtqhqaqtq.q"