Re: Summary of "What is missing for building real services" thread

The mission of W3C is to define a JS API, and the mission of the IETF is to
create a set of specifications. Code and libraries don't belong to them.

And honestly, I don't like the idea of "one library to rule all". APIs in
smart phones are vendor specific stuff so you are not talking about a
"native API" but about "code" for proprietary operating systems. Not here
please.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
On Jan 17, 2014 5:32 PM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> So guys: is there a strong interest in a more complete Native API that
> would parallel the Javascript API? If so, please let us know.
>
> Thanks,
> Gili
>
> On 17/01/2014 4:42 AM, Alexey Aylarov wrote:
>
>> I guess Mozilla has their own native library/code base , so there are at
>> least two.
>>   Alexey
>>
>> 17/01/14 13:29 пользователь "Tim Panton new" <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
>> написал:
>>
>>  On 17 Jan 2014, at 06:53, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 17/01/2014 1:44 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/17/2014 05:55 AM, cowwoc wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Justin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't strictly tied to the spec, but I think it makes a lot of
>>>>>> sense to release a Native API at the same time as v1 that implements
>>>>>> the same functionality as the Javascript API.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's out of scope for the standardization activity, however.
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>  Exactly who do you think would be interested in releasing such a thing?
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure.
>>>>
>>>> A related question is if someone comes along and does this legwork
>>>> (moving code from Chrome to the Native API), would Google consider
>>>> folding these changes into official Chrome releases... The benefit being
>>>> that this would simplify future WebRTC integration work for any future
>>>> browsers who want to jump on board (but are not necessarily based on
>>>> Blink).
>>>>
>>>> So in theory, this benefits both the browsers and authors of native
>>>> applications.
>>>>
>>>> Gili
>>>>
>>> I fully agree that a good native library would be great, however....
>>>
>>>  >From the standardization perspective this could be a bad thing. We are
>>
>>> risking a mono culture here, where every WebRTC implementation comes from
>>> the same code base. I'm not keen on that. In the old days you needed 2
>>> independent implementation before you could claim a standard was
>>> workable.
>>>
>>> Tim.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>