-
(from Matrix chat, @SphinxKnight )
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
We should certainly make some updates to this page:
It does seem like the adapter is still actively maintained though, so it probably is still relevant, but it would be good to check whether we should change the way we frame it, both at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebRTC_API#interoperability and in https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebRTC_API/adapter.js. We could also consider retiring https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebRTC_API/adapter.js. and just have a section in https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebRTC_API which links directly to the adapter. We could also consider not making this section the very first section of https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebRTC_API. Dominique suggested we ping the author of the adapter, @fippo , for their thoughts. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
👋 adapter.js remains somewhat relevant (I am looking at you |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
👋 adapter.js remains somewhat relevant (I am looking at you
connectionstatechange
event in Firefox as well as Safaris continued refusal to implement things it considers "legacy")Retiring the standalone page (which is really outdated) and having a section at the bottom recommending its usage sounds like a good idea!