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

Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:00:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOGMCbus9j7_pd0fReypDCxv+e8RDuieMUrQjVrN86h_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:41 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  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.

Yes, and as I said, the WG rejected this approach, just as it rejected the
low-level API approach. My point was merely that "high-level", "mid-level",
and "low-level" are terms that already have meaning in this WG. It would
be useful if you used them in a fashion consistently with that meaning.
If you have a proposal that doesn't fit into that taxonomy, then I suggest
you use a new name, rather than confusing reusing an old one.

        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 didn't ask you to do anything. You asked me a question, I told you how to
the answer. If you don't feel like doing it, it's hard to see why I should
do it
for you.

Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 03:01:39 UTC

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