Re: Status of Promise's in gUM discussion

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.