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

Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:43:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUH=cR2mDQjsJO=AFEXP0ZPm6bqMbac_ZV5WE7LADY088A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>

Thank you so much for giving us some feedback.  Given that you are writing
a book about WebRTC, you will probably be in a unique position to be in
contact with web developers using WebRTC, especially for the first time.
 Through that experience, you might learn better than anyone how well the
API works for them.  I encourage you, as you publish the book and are in
contact with readers, to come back to the forum and give us feedback about
how well it's working, what is good,  and what things are pain points for
new-comers (and more advanced users as well, obviously).  At the very
least, I would be interested to hear what they're trying to do with WebRTC
(their use cases).


On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:

> +1
> As a web developer that's spent a lot of time experimenting with the
> currently specified version of the WebRTC related APIs and that's been
> following the mailing list debates closely this really does seem like the
> best resolution.
> It provides a more extensible and flexible architecture that can evolve at
> "web developer speed" not "aligned browser release speed". And at this
> speed it will also be less fragile.
> It provides a clear separation of concerns so people can use SDP where
> they want, but not everyone is restricted by the timelines of other WGs
> that are required to evolve SDP.
> And it would enable even more experimentation and future facing
> development too.
> Also, in terms of timing I think getting this right is more important than
> the current commitment to a deadline.
> This is from the perspective of a web developer that has gone to all the
> effort of just finishing a book on "Getting started with WebRTC" using the
> existing API and who is also working on several commercial projects based
> on the current API.
> So if anyone should be promoting "just get the first version out" then it
> should be someone in my position. But I think you really will find that
> most web developers would rather we got this abstraction right first so we
> can avoid all of the extra support issues and application re-work that will
> be required down the track if we don't.
> roBman
> On 20/07/13 23:51, IƱaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> Let W3C experts to define a good JS API for WebRTC (with no SDP), let
>> MMUSIC WG to define a SDP format for WebRTC, and then let JavaScript SIP
>> experts to build JS libraries on top of it to play the SDP game, and we
>> all will be happy. And telcos will be much more happy than they think.
>> Let's get rid of all the SDP O/A stuff in the browser. The browser is
>> not a phone and "fixed logic + fixed code" does not work here.
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 14:45:03 UTC

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