I don't see any compelling reason not to provide both. Let's not mistake an appeal for a simple, backwards-compatible allowance, as a slight to Promises ;)
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Buchner <dan...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > While Promises would address this concern, I'm reluctant to go with that > > solution because it imposes yet-another-polyfill-dependency on the web > > component polyfills/libs. > > That seems fine. Most new APIs require that polyfill. We're here to > design the future of the platform and to do that we should take into > account the lessons we've learned along the way. > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
