Re: Discussing new API proposals

Ah, yes, it was a complete sentence.  It seems so obvious now :).  Sorry
for the trouble.


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <
matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

>  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> 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?
>
>
>>
>>