On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > 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're juggling both. And ultimately, a Web Audio standard that doesn't match the content that's actually out there is no standard at all. 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). > I don't feel good about this sort of compromise. But it also doesn't feel good to have one vendor ship and evangelize prematurely, then reap the benefits of being compatible with Web content while other vendors eschew compatibility to try to fix the Web. There is another option we could take, which is to very closely follow what Chrome has (or will have): a webkitAudioContext with all the compatibility stuff (except for data races!), and a standard AudioContext without the compatibility stuff. That might be the way to go. At some point in the future we can agree to drop webkitAudioContext together (or not). Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 22:28:03 UTC