>On 2014-04-15, 5:58 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: >> On 15/04/2014 22:34, K. Gadd wrote: >>> Arguably if you wait for other vendors to expose VR before you do it, >>> you'll end up having to implement a sub-standard proprietary API like >>> you did with Web Audio. >> >> We had an alternative implementation + API ( >> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Audio_Data_API ). I don't know if it exactly >> predated Web Audio, but I'm fairly sure qualifying us as "waiting for >> other vendors" in that domain is not fair, which also casts doubt on >> your assertion that >> >> > If you're first to the market (even with a >>> prototype that's preffed off), you can exert a lot more pressure on >>> how things turn out, IMO. > >The Audio Data API does predate Web Audio but it's actually much worse, and >I'm glad that we did not end up with that as _the_ solution for audio on >the Web. :-) Now, let's get back to solving Vlad's problem.
Don't forget we also had Roc's MediaStream Processing API as an alternative to Web Audio. I'm unsure of the timing, but it was roughly contemporaneous. I'll also note that you can be first-to-market (and set the landscape for arguing over the right JS API) using a extension or plugin that provides the API, so this argument has little weight on the issue of "must be in the default builds/trees". -- Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp remove "news" for personal email _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
