Status IE – IE's feature status and plans • Hacker News Board

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#21

Post by molant » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 1:46 AM UTC

JacobRossi wrote: post #15

pepelepoo wrote: post #13

heheh. This website has a hard dependency on chromestatus.com.

Yep, and we're already chatting with the Chrome team on how browsers can collaborate on this type of data. We encourage people to use our data too. It's openly licensed.

You can use CORS to access the data at http://status.modern.ie/features :)

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#22

Post by wluu » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 1:49 AM UTC

geetee wrote: post #10

I'm bewildered by the many "under consideration" entries. When all the other major players support something, and you want to be taken seriously, why aren't you throwing more engineers at the problem?

And here are some that they ship[1] that according to that page aren't in other browsers (or are listed as in development for one or more other browsers) 1. CSS Device Adaptation (@viewport) 2. CSS Scrolling Snap Points 3. Exclusions 4. Encrypted Media Extensions (only they and Chrome ship it) 5. Grid 6. IME API 7. Regions 8. Screen Orientation API 9. Streams API 10. Web Crypto API

[1] These are listed with a status of "Prefixed" on modern.ie/status.

Anyway, I think most of those aren't part of the w3c standards (yet). But I think it's good to see them publicly state their roadmap.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#23

Post by elisee » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 1:52 AM UTC

alfet wrote: post #18

dstorey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Object RTC is developed by a community group at the W3C. It includes people from Google, Microsoft and a number of telecom companies, amongst others http://www.w3.org/community/ortc/

so whats the difference between the two? its the first time i hear about object RTC.

Microsoft had a competing proposal to WebRTC called CU-RTC-Web which, as far as I understand it, proposed to get rid of the Session Description Protocol (which is text-based and thus difficult to parse/edit) and provide lower-level APIs instead (details here: http://www.tokbox.com/blog/what-the-cu-rtc-web-vs-webrtc-deb...).

I've just started reading up on ObjectRTC but I believe it plans to offer an API to replace SDP too and Microsoft has moved to it since it's similar to their CU-RTC-Web proposal. All in all, it looks like this will delay the adoption of WebRTC everywhere but will be for the best in terms of API and developer experience in the end.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#24

Post by nairteashop » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 1:55 AM UTC

alfet wrote: post #18

dstorey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Object RTC is developed by a community group at the W3C. It includes people from Google, Microsoft and a number of telecom companies, amongst others http://www.w3.org/community/ortc/

so whats the difference between the two? its the first time i hear about object RTC.

It's a nicer javascript object based API for interacting with WebRTC. WebRTC by default uses an SDP offer/answer based approach.

Here is a more detailed rationale for this API: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-js-obj-...

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#25

Post by paul7986 » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 1:55 AM UTC

No web audio API? Are they building in an alternative?

All other browsers support web audio. Why isn't MS following along?

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#26

Post by juberti » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 1:59 AM UTC

dstorey wrote: post #9

higherpurpose wrote: post #6

WebRTC is not even in their plan yet. Sigh .

Object RTC is under consideration instead.

It's OK. You can implement WebRTC as a JS library on top of ORTC.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#27

Post by derefr » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 1:59 AM UTC

cpncrunch wrote: post #20

McGlockenshire wrote: post #4

None of the things listed as "not currently planned" are big surprises, though seeing WebRTC there is very disappointing. I've never seen "Object RTC" before, is it a competing effort, or a restandardization effort?

IMO getUserMedia is more useful than WebRTC.

Those two things are... orthogonal? WebRTC is a transport for media and data streams, which looks somewhat like SCTP-over-DTLS-over-UDP. getUserMedia is a way to get a stream which can then be sent over a transport.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#28

Post by devnetfx » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 2:02 AM UTC

AdamTReineke wrote: post #2

Chrome's dashboard: http://www.chromestatus.com

Thanks for the link. I always found it hard to know what is happening in new versions of chrome and which feature became available when. This is exactly what I needed - Thanks!

Also found chrome dashboard easier to use than IE dashboard but that's understandable as this is new effort.

And, if anyone from IE team is here, how about some consistency with developer tools with other browsers as well. The web developer UI in IE 11 is so different that I struggle to found simple things - maybe I am not good in recognizing new icons :)

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#29

Post by derefr » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 2:04 AM UTC

JacobRossi wrote: post #14

geetee wrote: post #10

I'm bewildered by the many "under consideration" entries. When all the other major players support something, and you want to be taken seriously, why aren't you throwing more engineers at the problem?

If feature status were a Facebook relationship status, many might say "it's complicated." ;-) Most of the time, it's not actually a question of engineering resources. Stay tuned as we update more and more stuff to "In Development". (I work for IE)

I'm curious--does this imply internal-politics problems (e.g. getting other departments to expose, and possibly backport, APIs that Chakra needs to consume to do the features), or just weird engineering challenges specific to the Chakra codebase?

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#30

Post by TheCoreh » Thu, Apr 03, 2014, 2:28 AM UTC

JacobRossi wrote: post #16

TheCoreh wrote: post #5

Would be nice to know if they plan on implementing special handling for asm.js. This info is nowhere on this chart.

Ah,yes, good suggestion to add to our list on the site. Look for an update soon from our JS engine (Chakra) team's plan.

Thanks for such a fast reply! :) I'm quite happy with Microsoft's recent push towards openness.

One additional suggestion: Perhaps you could also include a rationale on why a specific feature is not planned to be implemented: e.g. WebRTC. (Though I can anticipate this might not be feasible to do for strategic / management reasons.)