- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:28:05 +0200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 08/04/2013 10:27 , Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Fully agreed. Your task is to convince us that the idea has technical > merit. To be fair, in 2013, I would think that the onus of technical proof ought to fall on whoever is *rejecting* Futures. Futures are designed to be the one true way of handling precisely what Anne is proposing them for here, and I am unaware of any opposition to this consensus. We've been discussing this for a while. Now we have a solution. Unless there are genuine, technically grounded concerns with Futures the time to use them is now. Frankly, I was expecting anyone with any JS programming experience to be dancing at the availability of Futures. I'm a bit surprised at the reluctance. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 10:28:14 UTC