Re: Strawman Promises consensus position, based on Thursday's telechat

On 10/6/14, 7:14 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 10/6/14 15:38, Domenic Denicola wrote:
>> This API has no shipping *unprefixed* implementations, right?
>
> As far as I believe, that's right. I'd suggest you check with the 
> Ericsson folks working on Bowser to be sure.
>
>> If so it seems clear that it'd be better to not ship a version that uses callbacks. That is, no standard navigator.getUserMedia should ever use callbacks.
>
> As long as we never ship anything called navigator.getUserMedia, that 
> retains compatibility. But because of the way people are calling this, 
> anything named "navigator.getUserMedia" needs to support the current 
> callback model, or it will break things. In other words, we either 
> need to define "navigator.getUserMedia" to include callback semantics, 
> or we need to burn the name forever.

I'm trying to figure out a pull-request for this. It seems to me that 
burning the name forever is what Domenic is suggesting here.

>> If there's a desire to support, say, a legacy navigator.webkitGetUserMedia that uses callbacks, in order to help existing applications work, that makes sense to me. It could be included in the standard (with that name), in the spirit of standardizing what's necessary for web-compat, despite it being distasteful. After all, if the goal is to avoid breaking existing deployed applications, then I would imagine it's much more important to standardize navigator.webkitGetUserMedia than to standardize navigator.getUserMedia. (I'm trying to find use-counter data to quantify how much more important, but regardless you can see why this is true.)
>
> I agree with you on "distasteful," and would prefer to define it 
> without naming it after a specific engine (you want to arm wrestle 
> about whether it's "webkit" or "moz"?[1]). But I really don't feel 
> strongly about it.

Me neither, but since there are several browsers on webkit, some of 
which we hope will implement this in the future, it probably makes sense 
to use navigator.webkitGetUserMedia as a primary name in WebIDL etc, but 
with a caveat in prose that implementations may choose to implement it 
as navigator.mozGetUserMedia instead?

.: Jan-Ivar :.