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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:54:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78j_8nc7_dcZz6QSgmjtgKCaiYfMFb-NLdVHGzgyVn7_Gw@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:50 UTC