- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 09:46:19 +0100
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 01/26/2013 02:19 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 25 January 2013 15:20, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: >> Sound good? > Mostly. > > Except: >> If we make the callbacks optional, then this change is completely backwards >> compatible with anything using the current specification. > We did decide at the last meeting that error callbacks would be > non-optional. Backwards compatibility for an unreleased spec that is > still undergoing breaking changes seems pretty daft to me. > We're getting more and more code that depends on the API. We'd like to make sure that we can allow that code to run, but preferably we'd want to do that by adding polyfills instead of messing up the implementation. Currently, our demos use a file called "adapter.js" to keep the code that's adapting to various versions.
Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 08:46:56 UTC