- 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>
+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