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

RE: Discussing new API proposals

From: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:13:49 +0000
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
CC: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484237148C1@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Pretty sure it is a complete sentence.

Does this help?:

I [myself] am not happy with the idea [as proposed here on the list] of having the correct API [one that discards offer/answer and hopefully also SDP] be deferred to 2.0 [as in not fixing it now, but waiting until a "2.0 specification" to have such an API that I would prefer], but requiring [implicitly, by having it become a W3C specification and then having customers demand conformance with the specification] browsers [like the one my company makes] to also [in that future state, where we have both the 1.0 and 2.0 specification] support the currently proposed 1.0 abomination [what we currently have as a W3C specification] [because there won't be any way to remove support for 1.0 when 2.0 is specified if sites are using the 1.0 APIs].

Matthew Kaufman

From: Peter Thatcher [pthatcher@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:06 AM
To: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
Cc: Stefan Håkansson LK; public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Discussing new API proposals

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net<mailto:matthew.kaufman@skype.net>> wrote:
I am not happy with the idea of having the correct API be deferred to 2.0, but requiring browsers to also support the currently proposed 1.0 abomination.

I think I know what you're trying to say here, but this doesn't appear to be a complete sentence.  Perhaps it was longer and you deleted something while editing?
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2013 15:14:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:49 UTC