W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > October 2014

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

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 08:49:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3ug9g1RzCrYwSZ=D=6nBe3-DsiPzOJ84cZ48_T8cYc0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Adam's message covers my position on this issue well. The fact that the
existing getUserMedia API is prefixed doesn't mean we can just ignore the
existing uses of it.

I think we're talking about a paragraph of text that shows how the existing
API can thunk to the new API, so I don't really understand why this so

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

>  On 10/7/14 10:20, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> <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 15:50:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:30 UTC