On 10/7/14 10:20, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> It could be, but at the cost of inconveniencing users in the name of
>> specification purity.
> navigator.getUserMedia(), unprefixed, never shipped in any
> implementation. Removing it therefore does not inconvenience
> developers. What implementations do with their proprietary
> implementations is up to them. And implementations having proprietary
> implementations should not put pressure on the specification process
> (unless it turns out we have to standardize one of the prefixed
> variants, but that seems unlikely long term).
That's pretty tone-deaf when you consider the implications for new
implementations.
Not to pick on anyone, but (because they provide a good, real-world
example), let's imagine Apple plans to ship WebRTC in some near-future
version of Safari. If we proceed as you propose, they'll have
effectively two choices:
1. Implement to spec (mediaDevices.getUserMedia), and have literally
nothing that's already deployed work, or
2. Implement from some inferred behavior about webkitGetUserMedia (or
mozGetUserMedia) that is not defined in the spec, and have existing
applications work just fine.
That seems untenable to me. If new implementations need to implement an
interface for compatibility with the deployed corpus of webapps, then it
is incumbent on the specification to document that interface in some form.
/a
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 15:31:54 UTC