W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Use-case: Auditing

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:32:24 -0400
Message-ID: <51E6D528.6010909@bbs.darktech.org>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Harald,

On 17/07/2013 7:28 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Thus, if your automated peer implements the protocols but not the 
> APIs, it can do anything it wants with the incoming packets.
>
> Were you looking for a browser-based recorder or for a 
> non-browser-based recorder?

     I understand, but as mentioned in the previous thread I believe 
there is a strong demand for headless (server) peers. I don't think it 
is realistic (or beneficial) for the specification to ask every server 
vendor to start parsing the signaling layer. By exposing Object APIs for 
these use-cases we enable future specifications to modify implementation 
details without applications out in the wild.

     We need to differentiate between Implementers and Application 
Developers. The latter should never have to interact with implementation 
details because then future changes will break their applications.

Gili
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 17:33:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:18 UTC