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

Re: Discussing new API proposals

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:58:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFvwCAap5ein6jrhJbpPRiCU8U0U2FvvZMPdxT-CpMzqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> We welcome new proposals and ideas to be made and discussed, and think
> this WG is the right place to do so.
>
> However, as outlined already last year, we think the WG should focus on
> finalizing the current API draft (to a LC status) before starting a new
> public/official document describing a new API. We think it has advanced
> far already, there are working implementations and it is used by
> application developers. Abandoning it, or slowing it down, now would be a
> bad idea.
>
> Discussing different use cases that are hard to do with the present API,
> and discussing approaches and ideas that would make those use cases easier
> to achieve, would probably be an excellent exercise in distilling out the
> main approach for a new API (or future API extensions). We welcome such
> discussions.
>
> In discussing, we should distinguish carefully between three categories of
> proposals:
>
> - those that would remove functionality that present applications depend
> on, and make it hard or impossible for those applications to go on working
> - those that move functionality between Javascript and the browser,
> possibly requiring simple adaptation libraries to maintain the
> functionality applications are currently using
> - those that extend the current functionality, allowing current
> applications to go on working.
>
> While respecting the need to keep APIs as clean and uncluttered as
> possible, it should be obvious which kinds  of changes require the more
> rigorous justification.
>
> The list is open for the discussions.
>

Stefan, I think it's great that the chairs are explicitly allowing
discussion.  However, I admit I'm a bit confused about what is encouraged
and what is discouraged here.  So, can you confirm a few things just so I
don't misunderstand?

- Discussion for use cases for "2.0":  encouraged
- A new public/official document: discouraged until "1.0" is at least LC
- Discussion/proposals for what the "2.0" would look like: ????

For example, is my NoPlan JS API proposal (which is 3 method additions, no
removals, or of the third type of change you mentioned) encouraged or
discouraged until 1.0 is at least LC?   If you're requesting that I wait to
discuss it further publicly, I can wait.  I just want to be clear that's
what you want.

Thanks  again for making things clear and supporting the web developers and
their input.


>
> Stefan for the chairs
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 00:59:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:35 UTC