Re: Constructors (was: Sites using webkitAudioContext only) from Alex Russell on 2013-06-20 (public-audio@w3.org from April to June 2013)

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:02:15 +0100
To: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Chris Lowis <chris.lowis@bbc.co.uk>, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CANr5HFV6_rjmya=1w35Ode+LFtW1oYdCT=21TWpELyKiF5ynAA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, folks-
>>
>> Maybe someone could clear this up for me. Couldn't we just have both
>> types of constructor?
>>
>> Unlike method/keyword aliases and prefixed names, this doesn't seem like
>> something that would be particularly harmful or confusing to developers, or
>> too much effort to implement or maintain, and it solves both of the
>> concerns (backwards compatibility, and platform consistency) that seem to
>> be expressed.
>>
>
> We can.  But what's the point of having two ways to create each node?
>

To the extent that the group feels it can't rescind the create* methods,
compatibility. Else, nothing. And these APIs should move to ONLY providing
constructors.

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 16:03:16 UTC