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

Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:46:31 -0400
Message-ID: <51EF4E17.9090205@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 23/07/2013 11:21 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>         Specifically, you seem to be using the word "SDP" and "API"
>     interchangeably.
> Sorry, this was my bad. As I mentioned to Sylvia, this was a typo.
>     To me, the Constraints API is the API. SDP is an implementation
>     detail. I agree with your sentence if you replace the word "SDP"
>     with "Constraints API". In other words, initially experimental
>     use-cases are only accessible via parsing/mutating the SDP by hand
>     and eventually they get added to the Constraints API so users
>     don't have to touch the SDP.
> Yes, I think this is an accurate reflection of the general view of the WG.

     That's good news. I'm glad to hear it!

>>         In other words, I understood that SDP is the logical
>>         equivalent of CSS prefixes.
>>     I don't know what that means.
>         I meant that when a specific browser introduces some
>     experimental feature, it should expose a "prefixed" Constraints
>     key. For example:
>     ".webkit-transform" is the Webkit-specific implementation of what
>     later became CSS3 "transform"
>         In the case of WebRTC, you could do the following:
>     var videoConstraints =
>     {
>       "mandatory":
>       {
>         "minWidth": 1024,
>         "-chrome-aspectRatio": 16/10
>       }
>     };
>         and eventually replace this by "aspectRatio" when the property
>     is standardized.
> Both Firefox and Chrome are moving away from the use of any kind of prefix
> in their APIs:
> http://www.chromium.org/blink#vendor-prefixes
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/itl6mtx2dxI/mbdPvbexB2EJ 
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21msg/mozilla.dev.platform/itl6mtx2dxI/mbdPvbexB2EJ>

     Their new policy is acceptable too. My point is that Constraints, 
whether prefixed or unprefixed behind experimental flags, are both 
preferable to asking users to manipulate SDP. Is that something we can 
look at?

> I don't think that this is really reasonable. SDP is incredibly 
> flexible and there are
> parts of it we wish people wouldn't use. I do think that any feature 
> that someone
> can present a credible use case for should be seriously considered for 
> some sort
> of non-SDP API point.

     That is acceptable too.

>>     With that said, I think you have an unrealistic expectation about
>>     the degree
>>     to which individual WG participants are obligated to respond to you.
>         Eric, you're not obliged to do anything. The community will
>     judge you by your actions, or lack thereof.
> Frankly, I think it's statements like this from you that people are 
> reacting negatively to.
> First, we're not talking about me. Second, you in fact have repeatedly 
> complained
> that other people aren't responding to you. Indeed upthread you 
> complain that
> Cullen didn't back you on the list.

     Sorry. My response was too much. I felt (perhaps wrongfully so) 
that you were attempting to downplay the fact that, until recently, 
legitimate concerns have gone unanswered by the WG.
>         Again, I have no wish to argue with you. In fact the opposite.
>     I believe that a lot of the arguments on the list could have been
>     avoided if the Working Group would have been transparent about its
>     plans.
> Again, I think the WG has been fairly transparent about its plans.

     It's getting better.

> Yes. I was on that call. Needless to say, I don't think Alex's writeup 
> is at all unbiased
> as to what happened. It's particularly odd to see a complaint about 
> "the little guy"
> given that the two major proponents of Futures were from Mozilla and 
> Google
> (as were most of the major opponents). Indeed, Alex himself works for 
> Google.

     We need more frequent webrtc-public IRC meetings and more Web 
Developer representation (ideally unaffiliated with any business 
interest). A recurring theme I keep on bringing up is that we have an 
insufficient number of active Web Developers in the Working Group and 
official meetings. I've asked Stefan recently (I don't think he's had 
the chance to respond yet) and I'll ask you the same: what is the 
Working Group's plan to rectify this?

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 03:47:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC