- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:44:35 +0000
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 13/10/14 18:50, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com > <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote: > > 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. > > > Well, I expressed precisely this opinion on the call, so I'm not sure where > you got this idea. We haven't seen any support for this position.
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 18:45:03 UTC