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

Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:25:44 -0400
Message-ID: <51EC7C08.5070201@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
CC: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 21/07/2013 7:27 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:20 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>         I think we both agree that we need a low-level API needs to be
>     driven by the capabilities exposed by the signaling layer (not
>     high-level use-cases). I think we both agree that we need a
>     high-level API needs to be driven by typical Web Developer
>     use-cases. So what are we disagreeing on here?
> We do not know what those use cases are. At least not yet. So, let's 
> give developers access to everything and they will develop easy to use 
> libraries for the use cases they need.

     So you're advocating that we only standardize a low-level API and 
leave it up to the community to publish competing high-level APIs? 
That's a valid option. I'd support this approach if you get community 
consensus that we're not going to standardize the high-level API.

> P.S. We should really stop talking about signaling. I am pretty sure 
> there is a strong consensus that there is no need for direct 
> browser-to-browser signaling in webrtc. We have protocols for real 
> time media and data, and API. The signaling is implemented in JavaScript.

     Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain this 
another way?

Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 00:26:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:49 UTC