Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The primary application is voice and video at least in my book
>
> I've always find this the most annoying point of WebRTC. Why so much
> focus on audio & video relegating DataChannels to a second place
> (almost a year to start having a specification and some
> implementations!). Would it be easier and simpler to implement the

audio & video support directly over the DataChannels, maybe requiring
> them to be not reliable?


No, it would not be easier. More importantly, it wouldn't be compatible
with existing devices, wihich is an important requirement.


> Also, developing the API from this point of
> view it would be a really simple one.


I don't think that's at all obvious. Note that every low-level API I have
seen for this that was at all plausible (e.g., CU-RTC-Web) has special
support for Audio and Video.

-Ekr