- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:06:06 +0200
- To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2012-08-29 14:30, Stefan Hakansson LK wrote: > The discussions of Aug 28 showed that there are people with differing > opinions on the structure of the API this WG should design. > > Most of the work in front of this group currently is dependent on a > basic decision between those two approaches - the issues to be resolved > (for example congestion control and RTP stream mapping) are in many > cases present in both proposals, but the API specifications that need to > be developed look a lot different. > > > It is not efficient use of the group’s time to work out detailed, > implementable proposals that then are thrown away because of a later > decision - nor is it a working environment conducive to inspiring > volunteers. > > The two alternatives, as the chairs see them, are the following: > > 1) Continue with a design based on the PeerConnection object, using SDP > as part of the API, roughly in the style of the current API description. I support alternative 1. Perhaps the low level approach gives us more reusable components, but I don't think it's worth the added complexity for JavaScript developers. I have no doubt that component reuse is something that browser developers will pursue even without having it explicitly in the standard. /Adam
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 13:06:30 UTC