- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:45:55 +0200
- To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > That's pretty tone-deaf when you consider the implications for new > implementations. If existing deployment is indeed so problematic you could always include the deprecation warning in the specification: https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#sync-warning It would indeed be bad if new implementations felt themselves forced to reverse engineer existing implementations. However, it does seem problematic to define a new method name that nobody has implemented yet hoping everyone has a shim in place. I'm not sure why e.g. Blink or Gecko would unprefix getUserMedia() if that is not the API we would like to end up with anyway. Given this you should probably just define moz/webkitGetUserMedia() or some such and encourage everyone to move away from it, stating it will be removed in 2016-2017. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 15:46:23 UTC