W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2011

RE: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology

From: Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:44:07 +0900
To: 'Hadriel Kaplan' <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org, 'Cullen Jennings' <fluffy@cisco.com>
Message-id: <012001cc92d0$bade85a0$309b90e0$%lee@samsung.com>
+1, Hadriel's proposal is good to me.

Best regards,
Wonsuk.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webrtc-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webrtc-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:56 AM
> To: Cullen Jennings
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology
> 
> 
> 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 04:45:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:25 UTC