On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > >> I would say I would like to not continue to bikeshed issues like >> constructors vs creators for an unspecified period of time, and that >> changes on that level should not be considered without strong need. >> Removing alternate names is not a problem. >> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> The only implementation which currently has an unprefixed implementation >>> which is close to shipping is Gecko, and I've said many times in this >>> thread that I'm open to delay shipping Web Audio in Firefox if we end up >>> making a large number of changes in order to improve the API. >>> >> >> Yes, which I think is the right thing to do. But simultaneously, I feel >> that pressure is being placed on Blink to remove its current somewhat >> stable webkitAudioContext, and to sign up for an unbounded set of changes >> to the API. >> > > I agree that we shouldn't be doing that. > > I'm in favour of limiting the scope of compatibility-affecting changes for > the unprefixed AudioContext to those that are either trivial or essential, > and setting a hard, short deadline for finalizing that list --- 1-2 weeks. > I think that list should be: > -- Everything that's already in the spec > -- Remove obsolete names. Ehsan will provide the precise list shortly. > -- Remove AudioContext.createBuffer(AudioBuffer) > -- Fixes to prevent races caused by changes to "live" AudioBuffers. I can > provide a proposal for this today, based on what we've already implemented. > You beat me to send this email out! As more of your day is left right now, I'd appreciate if you can prepare the proposal regarding the data race issues today. :-) Thanks! -- Ehsan <http://ehsanakhgari.org/>
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 23:29:19 UTC