- From: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:54:17 +0100
- To: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
- Cc: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Kiran Kumar Guduru <kiran.guduru@samsung.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:35, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > > So, I am sorry, but the argument of "Javascript can do it, so browser should not" does not sound like a good argument to me. That is exactly my argument. (better expressed than I’ve managed so far ;-) ) If it can be implemented by the average javascript developer in 10 lines or can be neatly put into a simple library we shouldn’t put it in the browser. Every thing we add at this stage (and I’ve been saying this for 9 months) delays the standard, and complicates testing. You have to be _very_ sure your favourite feature is worth the delay. T.
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 13:54:46 UTC