- From: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:55:42 +0000
- To: "public-ortc@w3.org" <public-ortc@w3.org>
Looking over the RTCDataChannel interface and comparing this against WebRTC 1.0, there are a bunch of differences whose justifications aren't clear to me. As an example, the Editor's draft didn't include the readyState, bufferedAmount and binaryType attributes, nor did it include several of the EventHandlers, such as onerror. To improve compatibility with WebRTC 1.0, I'd like to propose that we keep many of the WebRTC 1.0 constructs, while at the same time incorporating Peter's suggestions. Here is what things would look like: [Constructor(RTCDataTransport transport, RTCDataChannelParameters parameters)] interface RTCDataChannel : EventTarget { readonly attribute RTCDataTransport transport; readonly attribute RTCDataChannelParameters parameters; readonly attribute RTCDataChannelState readyState; readonly attribute unsigned long bufferedAmount; attribute DOMString binaryType; void close (); attribute EventHandler onopen; attribute EventHandler onerror; attribute EventHandler onclose; attribute EventHandler onmessage; void send (DOMString data); void send (Blob data); void send (ArrayBuffer data); void send (ArrayBufferView data); }; dictionary RTCDataChannelParameters { DOMString? label = ""; boolean ordered = true; unsigned short? maxPacketLifetime = null; unsigned short? maxRetransmits = null; DOMString? protocol = ""; boolean negotiated = false; unsigned short? id = null; }; interface RTCDataTransport { }; enum RTCDataChannelState { "connecting", "open", "closing", "closed" }; [Constructor(RTCDtlsTransport)] interface RTCSctpTransport : RTCDataTransport { attribute RTCDtlsTransport transport; static RTCSctpCapabilities getCapabilities (); void start (RTCSctpCapabilities remoteCaps); void stop (); attribute EventHandler ondatachannel; };
Received on Friday, 25 April 2014 21:56:11 UTC