Re: Proposed Charter Changes

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Göran Eriksson AP <
goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.


I would not consider this second option to be backward compatible.


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.
>

No, I don't think that's correct. There can be more than one way to do
things.



> 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.
>

Well, I've been hearing this called "1.1", but yes, that is my
interpretation.

-Ekr

Is that a correct interpretation?
>
>
> Best Regards
> Göran
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>