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

Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

From: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:53:42 +0100
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Message-Id: <F8D8808D-92A4-43D1-BFF1-108EB8A060F4@westhawk.co.uk>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>

On 19 Jul 2013, at 03:03, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
> 
>    Short answer: yes.
> 
>    Long answer: if we're going to go with an Object API I recommend going a lot further than the current Constraint API. Populating a key-value map is not an API in my book; it's also the reason I think SDP is a poor match for end-users. We can (and should) do a lot better by exposing an imperative API.
> 

The original constraints idea was for the web programmer to express in _their_ terms what the application they were writing needs. So they state that LowlatencyAudio (for a choir) is required or HighFrameRate video (for a motor racing broadcast) and the browser does it's best to translate that into whatever is needed in the (opaque to the Javascript user) SDP. 

The problem with an imperative API is that you _very_ soon end up exposing the codec names or worse
 Quality/Complexity/etc settings of the codecs - who's meanings are even _less_ clear than SDP :-) . The only way to avoid that is to couch the requirements in more generic terms, which brings you to the constraints style above.

Tim.



> Gili
> 
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 10:54:10 UTC

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