W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > April 2013

Re: VideoStreamTrack: takePhoto()

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:35:22 +0200
Message-ID: <5162B98A.3070009@alvestrand.no>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 04/08/2013 12:28 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the corroboration that there are at least 2 people in the 
world who think that.
But still - do we know what we are being asked to buy into?

A little googling ( https://github.com/whatwg/dom/commits) shows that 
Anne added futures to the whatwg spec for DOM a whole whooping 11 days ago:

And algorithm changes were going into this spec 3 days ago:

This isn't just asking us to adopt ideas that have gathered consensus in 
the community.
This is asking us to adopt new sources of instability in the foundations 
we're building on.

> 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.

That's what I heard about UTF-5 in 1992 and UTF-16 in 1994 also.
Java's (and Javascripts' by inheritance) adherence to UTF-16 is a legacy 
of people believing that.

> 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.
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 12:35:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:16 UTC