On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:45 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > >> If you ship only the new names, a lot of existing content won't work. If >> you ship the old names, but not webkitAudioContext, still a lot of existing >> content won't work. >> > > Hence this thread. > > >> That content was developed to a prefixed, potentially non-standard >> implementation, by definition. Unless your goal is to exactly replicate >> the webkit-prefixed platform that content was written on, it's not all >> going to work. >> > > Having some things not work is OK. Having lots of important things not > work is not OK. There are tradeoffs here and it's rational to choose a > non-end-point. > I'm confused as to whether you're prioritizing support a great Web Audio standard, or being compatible with "all the content" currently out there. > We need to be realistic - today, there is no shipping implementation that >> even uses the correct unprefixed name, so anyone who writes var ctx = >> AudioContext is just being hopeful. >> > > Web developers tend to do that. Which is one reason why prefixing fails. > Indeed. And we (collective we) won't be doing that any more. :) > - but we need to be realistic that on day one, all the content developed >> to the nascent webkit/blink implementation is not going to work on a >> standards implementation, and some of it never will (if it's never >> maintained). >> > > We might be able to get close without much work. > > I think we (Mozilla) should put the non-standard names behind a pref and > put webkitAudioContext behind another pref. Then as our Web Audio > implementation marches through our release process, users and developers > can easily experiment to see how much compatibility we get by turning on > those features. If we get valuable compatibility, the argument for > defaulting on the necessary prefs is strong. > See above. I can guarantee you will get much more compatibility if you replicate webkitAudioContext and the old names; that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do for the health of the web (particularly as it makes it nigh on impossible to ever get that stuff OUT of the web platform). -C
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 22:10:09 UTC