- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:54:45 +0200
- To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, 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 5:49 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: > 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. That is in fact how most WGs and user agents treated prefixes. WebRTC is still using them, but for everything else we stopped this practice: https://hsivonen.fi/vendor-prefixes/ That is not to say that we should follow past practice for prefixed features here, but I think it explains some of the mismatch. > 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 > controversial. What is controversial at this point are two things: 1) Unprefixing a known-bad-API 2) Not willing to deprecate said known-bad-API -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 15:55:13 UTC