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 12:54:35 -0400
Message-ID: <51ED63CB.6050309@bbs.darktech.org>
To: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 22/07/2013 12:01 PM, tim panton wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2013, at 16:37, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>> 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'm not talking about a low-level api any more than webAudio or DOM are low level.
> Exposing a coherent set of objects that represent the underlying capabilities is not the same thing as
> low level. Take a look at
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/raw-file/tip/webaudio/specification.html#dfn-OscillatorNode
> for an example of what I mean.
> By contrast the CU-RTC api's ice abstraction _is_ low level - any API that requires javascript to do bit
> manipulation has gone astray in my view.
> I am _DEFINITELY_ not talking about anything to do with any signalling layers. Signalling belongs in
> javascript, not in the browser. I fought long and hard to avoid signalling being baked into the browser,
> I have zero interest in any proposal that even hints in that direction.

     Help me understand your last point. What is "signaling" to you? I'm 
aware of two kinds of network communication: data and meta-data. The 
first consists of audio/video data. The second consists of descriptions 
of that data (what SDP does today).

     In your proposal, what functionality is implemented in the browser? 
Who should be encoding/decoding RTP packets? The browser or the API?

Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 16:55:27 UTC

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