On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Domenic Denicola < [email protected]> wrote:
> From: Paul Cotton [mailto:[email protected]] > > > 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
