Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

>  On 7/19/13 12:07, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Negotiation is a hole.  A vast, soul-sucking, waste of time.
>>
>>
> Even if you have the same javascript application downloaded, you will have
> disparate capabilities in the environments into which it is downloaded
> (browser/os/codecs/media sources/available network capacity).  Getting set
> intersection and preference order for those capabilities is something that
> applications actually want.  You may be able to move the pain of that
> around, but it isn't a waste of time.
>
>
> I can't +1 this hard enough. I certainly don't want every javascript
> application that makes use of the WebRTC API to independently discover that
> mobile terminal Foocom A1 runnning MobileOS 3.1.7(a) bogs down to unusable
> if you try to send it more than 320x200 video, and then try to solve that
> problem.
>
> Again and again, for every permutation of phone and operating system
> version.
>
> Yeah, someone has to do this kind of characterization, and some of it can
> be done real-time if you're interacting directly with the operating system.
> So... maybe we could add yet another API to WebRTC to allow applications to
> build this functionality themselves rather than counting on them
> characterizing the systems they care about and blowing up on the ones they
> don't.
>
> But, honestly, any course of action that relegates this to the
> applications seems to have the dual properties of forcing it to be
> implemented hundreds of thousands of times while making the actual user
> experience worse.
>

Hundreds of thousands of times?


>
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>