- From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:12:01 +0000
- To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 02/04/15 00:55, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: > >> 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. Words are important,:-)! Yes, that browser UA’s use JS to implement API’s are not uncommon. Another way of supporting backward compatibility with JS-shim/polyfill/etc would be to have it shipped with the web app meaning the web site would have to change, but I understand that this option would be blocked for the WG. And supporting backward compatibility to Web 1.0-enabled site (though not that many) is relevant. However, then the meaning of “extension” is even more important since that also could be interpreted as new low-level APIs *only* for new functionality and not to do what 1.0 does, e.g. in a slightly different way. It gives me the impression that this puts quite some constraints on the evolution of WebRTC API’s and constraints written in stone (charter)- a WebRTC 2.0 API would have to include the 1.0-API’s also for sites designed for 2.0. Is that a correct interpretation? Best Regards Göran > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 09:12:26 UTC