On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Hmm. I'm not sure what to say. >>> >> >> I'm not sure what to say either. >> >> >>> I'm not sure we're coming out so far ahead as you think we are. >>> >> >> It's stark enough. Existing content (of which there is a fair bit) works >> in Chrome and not Firefox. >> > > "Of which there is a fair bit" does not seem compatible with Ehsan's > statement. > Ehsan and I may disagree about that. Personally, I think that announcing Firefox supports Web Audio, having developers and users search for "Web Audio demo" and finding that most of those demos don't work, is a big problem. (Especially when they explicitly say "your browser does not support Web Audio".) It creates perception problems that are difficult to fix later. Maybe we can evangelize our way to victory there over the next 12 weeks. We'll see. If you think the usage of webkitAudioContext, etc is like usage of > XMLHTTPRequest, then by all means implement it as-is. If not, let's fix it > and we'll move everyone to the standard one. > Usage of webkitAudioContext doesn't have to be as large as XHR to be a problem. We owe it to those who built early code to not just shoot them in the head, > and be responsible. > Why is it important that their code works in Chrome but not important that it works in Firefox? 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 Thursday, 20 June 2013 23:07:29 UTC