W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: [streams-api] Seeking status of the Streams API spec

From: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:45:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA0c1bAoPuTZf+FxBobjjxrbH7b2Ntk0nb=AM39YScUs9UbPog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, "Jerry Smith (WINDOWS)" <jdsmith@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Feras Moussa <feras.moussa@hotmail.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com]
>
> > Would it be feasible to resurrect this interface as a layer on top of
> [1] so that W3C specifications like MSE that have a dependency on the
> Streams interface are not broken?
>
> The decision we came to in web apps some months ago was that the
> interfaces in that spec would disappear in favor of WritableStream,
> ReadableStream, and the rest. The idea of a single Stream interface was not
> sound; that was one of the factors driving the conversations that led to
> that decision.
>
>
This decision makes sense to me. I just need to sit down and read the new
Streams spec to come up with a new proposal. The simplest solution looks
like it would be to just change the Stream to ReadableStream in the
existing appendStream() signature and then update the relevant algorithms
to properly interact with that object. Like I said, I don't have enough
knowledge yet to fully understand the implications of that yet. I plan to
spend some quality time with the Stream spec sometime this week so I can
get a better handle on this. I will probably have questions for Domenic and
Takeshi, but I know where to find them. :)

I believe the old Stream interface is only a problem for IE. I don't think
any other browser has shipped it. While I am sensitive to the backwards
compatibility issues, it isn't clear to me that we should stick to the old
signature just because IE chose to ship a Stream object before the spec was
in a more stable state. In some ways I feel like it is better that there
are different object names because then this could just be handled like a
method overload instead of trying to figure out how to distinguish 2
implementations with the same object name.

Aaron
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 18:45:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:31 UTC