Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences

On 21/07/2013 9:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>     What does "SIP in the browser" mean? I assume you don't mean 
> literally.
>
> No, I mean it literally. Minimally, the JS would have no meaningful
> visibility into the signaling messages (i.e., the JS would just request
> that the messages be transmitted) and maximally you would
> actually send messages via SIP.

     In my original proposal, the implementation of the low-level API is 
all about parsing the signaling layer. The high-level API never sees the 
signaling layer and it definitely is not "SIP in the browser". I 
disagree with exposing SIP anywhere, even in the lower-level API. If you 
want to use SIP in the signaling implementation that's fine, but the 
object API should not expose these implementation details to the outside 
world.

>         Were Web Developers well-represented when this was first
>     discussed? Do you have a breakdown of who voted in favor or against?
>
>
> It's in the W3C email archives, meeting minutes, etc.

     I consider that a non-answer. I have pointed you to a specific 
document that shows that the majority of Web Developers are against the 
current API proposal, complete with a list of names and why they are 
against the proposal. It's not reasonable to ask me to wade through 
months' worth of email archives. I assume that W3C is more organized 
than this. Didn't you guys publish a single document that summarized 
what was said and who voted for what?

>         I agree that this represents a major shift in the WG
>     direction, but if you read
>     https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuaKXw3SkHMSdHlZdV9RN0xSWFhybVl4anJLRkVPV0E#gid=1
>     and the mailing list discussions over the past 2 months it's
>     pretty clear that the vast majority of the community is in favor
>     of a change.
>
>
> That's not anything like clear. There have been a large number of
> posts from a relatively small number of people, but that doesn't
> make it consensus.

     The "relatively small number of people" happen to outnumber the 
number of active Working Group members. Either the Working Group needs 
to become more active on the mailing list (a move I would welcome), or 
admit that the majority of active participants disagree with their API 
design.

     I'll ask again:

 1. Who is the target audience of WebRTC? Browser Vendors, Integrators
    or Web Developers?
 2. Can you prove that the majority of Web Developers are in favor of
    the current API? It should be fairly simple to vote on the matter.
 3. It's pretty clear, based on the companies the Working Group members
    work for, that the majority of them do not represent Web Developers.
    Isn't that a problem?

Gili