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 22:44:00 -0400
Message-ID: <51EC9C70.2090902@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 21/07/2013 9:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com 
> <mailto:roman@telurix.com>> wrote:
>     On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com
>     <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
>         Generally, we've talked about three kinds of APIs:
>         High-Level: Effectively SIP in the browser
>         Mid-Level: What we have now
>         Low-Level: Something in the vein of CU-RTC-Web
>         We've seen proposals for all of these and I think there was
>         rough consensus to do a mid-level API and in particular
>         JSEP (and incidentally not to do a low-level API). To my
>         knowledge, there has never been any kind of consensus
>         call not to do a Mid-Level API, and it would represent
>         a major shift in WG direction.
>     I would see API more of the continuum then exact division between
>     the three categories.
> Sure. I'm just trying to reserve use of "high level" for something 
> rather far above
> the current API.

     Upon further reflection, I agree with Roman. The current API is not 
a "mid-level" API so much as a confused design mixing components from 
the low-level and high-level APIs. I agree with him that it is important 
for us to deliver a consistent level of abstraction.

Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 02:44:50 UTC

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