- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:59:45 +0200
- To: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
- Cc: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry to interfer then but your discussion with Arun seems to have no point > if streams are there. I don't follow. > The fact is that most of the W3C groups impacted by streams (File, > indexedDB, MSE, WebRTC, WebCrypto, Workers, XHR, WebSockets, Media Stream, > etc, I must forget a lot here) seem not to care a lot about it and maybe > just expect streams to land in the right place in the APIs when they are > available, by some unknown magic. Well, we need to sort out the fundamental abstraction first and that is taking its time. Only then can we integrate it throughout the system. > I still think that the effort should start from now for all the APIs (as > well as the implementation inside browsers, which apparently has started for > Chrome, but Chrome was supposed to have started some implementation of the > previous Streams APIs, so it's not very clear), and that it should be very > clearly synchronized, disregarding vague assumptions from the groups about > low/high level and Vx releases, eluding the issue. Well, we are looking into it from an API perspective. Perhaps not all, but we have had quite a bit of discussion (elsewhere, not here) how streams should work with the new fetch() method. But again, I think as with promises, we need the primitive first. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 09:00:12 UTC