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

Re: [SPAM] What is missing for building "real" services?

From: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:52:10 +0000
Cc: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Alexandre Gouaillard <agouaillard@gmail.com>, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Message-Id: <D548B54F-BF54-4936-AAAC-0D2B4EA6F848@westhawk.co.uk>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On 15 Jan 2014, at 23:20, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Blocking HTTPS makes it impossible to share a Google Docs doc or
>>>> presentation
>>>> 
>>>> Look, this is a hard problem, and we've come to a point where use of the
>>>> screensharing feature in Chrome requires jumping through a hoop (i.e.
>>>> installing an extension), but not a ridiculously difficult one. I
>>>> suspect
>>>> that web applications will find fairly elegant ways to incorporate this
>>>> into
>>>> their flow.
>>> 
>>> It's not just the Chrome extension that you need - you will need one
>>> for every browser. Also, what do you do on mobile devices? There is
>>> nothing elegant about installing browser extensions.
>> 
>> 
>> Developers are pretty good at making do with what is available. I've seen
>> some pretty slick demos that show you can build a nice experience even with
>> the current state of affairs.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WebRTC brings the promise to not have to deal with extensions and
>>> screensharing is a core feature of video conferencing applications. It
>>> just makes no sense to me to ignore this requirement for WebRTC and
>>> push it into a browser extension. It's a step back in technology. I
>>> think we need to think harder about how to solve this problem in a way
>>> that makes it part of the Web platform. I think we've given up too
>>> quickly.
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think anyone's given up. It's just that it's not the only problem to
>> solve right now.
> 
> Good to know. I had the impression this far that we had come to a
> conclusion on this and there wasn't going to be any native
> screensharing.
> 
> So we can continue the brainstorming.
> 
> This far we have the following proposals:
> 1. whitelist HTTP pages, black-out HTTPS pages
> 2. black-out all pages except for thos having a <meta
> name="screensharing" content="allow"/> tag
> 

Actually I was proposing a combination of 1 and 2 :

whitelist HTTP pages, black-out HTTPS pages
except for those having a <meta
name="screensharing" content="allow"/> tag

> Silvia.
> 
Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 08:52:37 UTC

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