W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Summary of "What is missing for building real services" thread

From: Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:29:34 +0000
Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <921F4594-ED57-47AA-A0ED-7C22DB329AB3@westhawk.co.uk>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>

On 17 Jan 2014, at 06:53, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> On 17/01/2014 1:44 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 01/17/2014 05:55 AM, cowwoc wrote:
>>> Hi Justin,
>>> 
>>> This isn't strictly tied to the spec, but I think it makes a lot of sense to release a Native API at the same time as v1 that implements the same functionality as the Javascript API.
>> 
>> That's out of scope for the standardization activity, however.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Exactly who do you think would be interested in releasing such a thing?
> 
> I'm not sure.
> 
> A related question is if someone comes along and does this legwork (moving code from Chrome to the Native API), would Google consider folding these changes into official Chrome releases... The benefit being that this would simplify future WebRTC integration work for any future browsers who want to jump on board (but are not necessarily based on Blink).
> 
> So in theory, this benefits both the browsers and authors of native applications.
> 
> Gili

I fully agree that a good native library would be great, however....

From the standardization perspective this could be a bad thing. We are risking a mono culture here, where every WebRTC implementation comes from the same code base. I'm not keen on that. In the old days you needed 2 independent implementation before you could claim a standard was workable.

Tim.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 09:30:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:37 UTC