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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:37:02 -0400
Message-ID: <51ED519E.7060401@bbs.darktech.org>
To: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 22/07/2013 4:10 AM, tim panton wrote:
>> 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 get the difference between what you're saying and what I 
wrote. We're about talking about a low-level API that exposes 
capabilities that is implemented on top of the signaling layer.

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

     That's fine. As I mentioned previously, I'm fine with this approach 
(leaving it to the community to design the high-level API) but you're 
going to have to get community consensus (on this mailing list) for this 
change. Right now the Working Group is under the impression it is 
building something higher level.

> 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 ).

     I don't see why we are less capable of collecting use-cases than a 
github project, but regardless... I understand your belief that it is 
W3C's job to ensure interoperability and the community's job to pick up 
that low-level API and build something higher-level on top.

Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 15:37:53 UTC

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