- From: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:42:21 +0400
- To: Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- CC: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I guess Mozilla has their own native library/code base , so there are at least two. Alexey 17/01/14 13:29 пользователь "Tim Panton new" <thp@westhawk.co.uk> написал: > >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 09:42:52 UTC