Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences

On 22 Jul 2013, at 00:20, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> On 21/07/2013 6:07 PM, tim panton wrote:
>> To be clear - I wasn't asking for use-cases - I was being asked for them.
>> My reply then, as now,  is that we just don't know how webRTC will be used in the (near) future.
>> Any design process that starts off by assuming we know the definitive set of use cases is doomed.
> 
> Tim,
> 
>    Let's take a step back.
> 
>    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?

I think we disagree on quite a bit. I dislike the 'low level' description. What we need is an object orientated api that exposes a coherent set of capabilities. The webAudio API is a good example of how that can be done.

I don't agree that we need a single W3C blessed  'high-level API'.

I don't believe the W3C should be in the business of mandating specific javascript libraries. Just as it hasn't endorsed jQuery as the 'one-true-way'. The browsers expose functionality and then developers either build directly on them or layer on their favourite libraries.

I also don't believe that we know enough to produce a complete set of use-cases for the 'high-level API', 
most of the use cases you will gather now are either straight from the video conferencing domain or the telco domain. (Which is a large part of how we got the current draft api ).





> 
> Gili
>

Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 08:10:50 UTC