Re: Status of Promise's in gUM discussion

Hi Ekr,

On 13/10/14 15:55, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> I don't think this is an accurate summary of the situation.
>
> When I proposed the compromise in your CfC, it was intended as a package
> deal.
> I certainly am not OK with moving to promises on these APIs without a
> backward
> compatibility story as well. I suspect that others feel the same.
>
> If you want to declare consensus on just the points you have here, you need
> to do a separate consensus call on adding promises *regardless* of backwards
> compatibility.

as far as we can tell, there is no support for blocking the introduction 
of promises for navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia, applyConstraints 
and enumerateDevices pending the resolution of how to document the 
backwards compatibility.

Stefan

>
> -Ekr
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     Based on the feedback given to the Strawman consensus position mail [1],
>     it seems that there is clear consensus to move to promises for
>
>     * navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia
>     * applyConstraints
>     * enumerateDevices
>
>     and we think the editors can start updating the draft to reflect this.
>
>     The discussion has not really settled on how to handle backwards
>     compatibility with the callbacks based getUserMedia call on navigator.
>     We'll see if any consensus can be discerned in the coming couple of
>     days, if not we'll take a chair's decision on this part.
>
>     Stefan for the chairs
>
>
>     [1]
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2014Oct/0033.html
>
>

Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 14:34:13 UTC