- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:14:27 -0700
- To: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 18:15:35 UTC
This seems like a not-unreasonable argument for changing the API (though I think there are some obvious counterarguments was well). However, it's not much of an argument that Firefox should ignore the clear specification language. -Ekr On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de> wrote: > Am 23.06.2014 17:20, schrieb Adam Roach: > > On 6/23/14 09:32, Emil Ivov wrote: >> >>> Personally I thought it was an oversight in the FF implementation >>> >> >> No; starting with the W3C spec (because we're talking about a JS API >> here), we reached the same conclusion as IƱaki did, using the same >> (rather obvious) chain of logic. It is most assuredly not an oversight, >> as we've had to take extra steps to process the candidates that Chrome >> generates: >> > > Do you have a pointer to that rationale? > > I have a lib that translates SDP and candidates into JSON and back. > With just the candidate-attribute I have to parse two variants (easy) and > serialize two variants as well. > When constructing a an SDP that goes into SetLocalDescription or > SetRemoteDescription, I need a SDP line. > For addIceCandidate, I don't. > >
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 18:15:35 UTC