- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:13:14 -0700
- To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- CC: Adrian Georgescu <ag@ag-projects.com>, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Google's been using "WebRTC" (capitalized as such) for their opensource implementation of the technologies involved too. On 10/24/2011 10:18 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > +1 > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > >> WebRTC sounds great! >> >> Adrian >> >> On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >> >>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think there is an answer to this yet so I guess we need to figure it out. I'm ore concerned about the long term explanation to people outside W3C or IETF. Hadriel, with you marketing hat on, you have any suggestions of what we should call the whole thing? >>> Web 4.0. ;) >>> >>> I asked a couple other folks and the consensus seems to be: "WebRTC" for the whole thing. >>> >>> The rationale is that it's still the Web but with native real-time-communication support, as opposed to real-time-communication but with web support. For example if you wrote a book about how to write Web-apps for it, you would probably use the term "WebRTC" in the book title. Another rationale was that it follows the naming scheme for WebM and WebP. >>> >>> For the API, the consensus was it would be confusing to people if we weren't consistent with W3C docs. >>> >>> So I propose the following: >>> >>> WebRTC: the whole shebang >>> WebRTC API: the JS<->Browser API. >>> >>> -hadriel >>> p.s. personally I've gotten used to the term "RTCWeb", but it may be because of my IETF focus rather than W3C/Web focus. >>> >>> > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 01:13:46 UTC