W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:55:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPaQTaNQ3sh4nrxzXTQhvMbkAsE_62-AoVPsD8PFzuDBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, IƱaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc_w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The primary application is voice and video at least in my book
>
> I've always find this the most annoying point of WebRTC. Why so much
> focus on audio & video relegating DataChannels to a second place
> (almost a year to start having a specification and some
> implementations!). Would it be easier and simpler to implement the

audio & video support directly over the DataChannels, maybe requiring
> them to be not reliable?


No, it would not be easier. More importantly, it wouldn't be compatible
with existing devices, wihich is an important requirement.


> Also, developing the API from this point of
> view it would be a really simple one.


I don't think that's at all obvious. Note that every low-level API I have
seen for this that was at all plausible (e.g., CU-RTC-Web) has special
support for Audio and Video.

-Ekr
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 21:56:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:34 UTC