W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > September 2015

Re: DataChannels in Workers

From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:35:43 +0000
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D22F549B.1B0C1%goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
And You may not need to worry too much- I misread Randalls email to
concern WebRTC data channel in the Service Worker but it is about an
“ordinary” Worker.

Still great and perhaps something to get into 1.0.

WebRTC data channel in Service Workers (SW) is something I’ll look forward
to, but most likely for WebRTC NV then.

Sorry for the confusion on my behalf.

Regards
Göran

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sunday 27 September 2015 06:00
To: W3C WEBRTC <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: DataChannels in Workers
Resent-From: W3C WEBRTC <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sunday 27 September 2015 06:01

>On 09/25/2015 08:01 PM, Göran Eriksson AP wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ToDo: write a PR for the spec.  I believe this will be a fairly small
>>> change to the spec itself (and we've been indicating we want it), so
>>>I'd
>>> like to have this in 1.0.
>> This is absolutely great and I look forward to the first draft on the PR
>> on GitHub and will refrain from commenting until that is available.
>>
>> I have some concerns about this delaying 1.0, or vice versa for that
>> matter, but that should not be something that stops this work from
>> starting.
>>
>> However, it would be great if it could be in a separate spec than the
>> webrtc 1.0. Make it an associated part of the new SW specification or a
>> stand alone one?
>Administrative thought:
>
>We did have agreement in Seattle that we would not try to cram more
>stuff into 1.0 than what we agreed on in Seattle. Somewhere we have to
>draw the line.
>(See Stefan's message "Decisions and further work coming from Seattle
>f2f")
>
>Making a separate spec for something that is not a huge change to the
>*spec* feels like a bother - but what I've heard before is that adding
>this functionality in implementations is much more of a challenge.
>
>Adding this to the 1.0 spec will also mean that implementations that
>don't do this can't claim 1.0 conformance - not that this seems to
>matter as much these days as it used to.
>
>I worry.
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 28 September 2015 18:36:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:46 UTC