- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 22:26:28 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
+1. Well said. Gili On 20/07/2013 7:06 PM, Rob Manson wrote: > +1 > > As a web developer that's spent a lot of time experimenting with the > currently specified version of the WebRTC related APIs and that's been > following the mailing list debates closely this really does seem like > the best resolution. > > It provides a more extensible and flexible architecture that can > evolve at "web developer speed" not "aligned browser release speed". > And at this speed it will also be less fragile. > > It provides a clear separation of concerns so people can use SDP where > they want, but not everyone is restricted by the timelines of other > WGs that are required to evolve SDP. > > And it would enable even more experimentation and future facing > development too. > > > Also, in terms of timing I think getting this right is more important > than the current commitment to a deadline. > > This is from the perspective of a web developer that has gone to all > the effort of just finishing a book on "Getting started with WebRTC" > using the existing API and who is also working on several commercial > projects based on the current API. > > So if anyone should be promoting "just get the first version out" then > it should be someone in my position. But I think you really will find > that most web developers would rather we got this abstraction right > first so we can avoid all of the extra support issues and application > re-work that will be required down the track if we don't. > > roBman > > > On 20/07/13 23:51, IƱaki Baz Castillo wrote: >> Let W3C experts to define a good JS API for WebRTC (with no SDP), let >> MMUSIC WG to define a SDP format for WebRTC, and then let JavaScript SIP >> experts to build JS libraries on top of it to play the SDP game, and we >> all will be happy. And telcos will be much more happy than they think. >> Let's get rid of all the SDP O/A stuff in the browser. The browser is >> not a phone and "fixed logic + fixed code" does not work here. > > >
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2013 02:27:13 UTC