Re: Discussing new API proposals

     +1.

Gili

On 18/07/2013 11:22 AM, Robin Raymond wrote:
>
> I am concerned as a developer using the WebRTC API for my applications 
> that we'll have to support a 1.0 version for the browser vendors who 
> have not yet implemented 2.0.
>
> This creates a situation where we must support two version of the API 
> just like the browser vendors have to support two version.
>
> I'm equally concerned that the argument that we all have to support 
> two versions of the API will be the very argument used to discount 
> ever creating a 2.0 version. Thus we'll end up with 1.0 "abomination" 
> [see Matthew's definition] forever.
>
> -Robin
>
>
>> Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <mailto:matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
>> 18 July, 2013 11:13 AM
>> 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
>>