Re: Proposed Charter Changes


> On Apr 1, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just a few questions to ensure I don¹t misunderstand:
> 
> >
> >s the name implies, WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers
> >is to be considered as a first version of APIs for real-time
> >communication. The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time
> >Communication Between Browsers reaches Candidate Recommendation, consider
> >proposals for backward-compatible object-oriented extensions to this API.
> 
> I assume ³backward-compatible² include the possibility of the 1.0 API
> being supported using a js-shim on the evolved object-oriented/inspired
> low-level API's?
> 
> The word ³extension²; does that mean new functionality ³only² could be
> object-oriented or does it also allow for existing functionality in 1.0 to
> be supported with low-level oo- API's, replacing 1.0 approach API's, were
> the WG to consider that motivated and desirable?
> 
> 
> 
> I interpret this as requiring that implementations written to the 1.0 API
> function with the 1.1 API. If implementations want to internally do just OO
> APIs and have a JSL, that's their business.
> 
> Cullen, is that what you meant?
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 

Yes - exactly. 

I think of it as if I have a website that works with version X of the browser that only has the 1.0 API, that same website keeps working when a user uses version X+1 of the browser that has the 1.1 API. How the browser makes that happen and how they decide to split up their implementation is no worry of mine. I realize some browsers use various JS polyfills to make stuff happen.

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 22:55:57 UTC