Re: multiple - Call for Consensus (CfC): WebRTC-NV

I agree with the importance of documenting existing use cases.
The scope of WebRTC-NV is a bit different AIUI given its ’next version’ name.
My understanding of the main goal here is to explore use cases bringing new requirements to the table, which in turn should pave the way to new APIs/new feature proposals.


> On 30 Jan 2023, at 11:16, T H Panton <tim@pi.pe> wrote:
> 
> I’m a bit concerned that we seem to have tightly coupled use cases with the production of agreed requirements.
> 
> I’m not clear on the W3C process on this, but it seems to me that a use case can be valuable even without any new requirements.
> 
> Even in situations where a use-case is already possible with existing APIs I think it can be useful to add it.
> Such an addition has the following desireable results:
> 
> 1) it flags up to web developers that webRTC -is- a valid solution to this use case
> 2) it makes an implicit promise that this capability isn’t a quirk that will soon go away in a spec revision
> 3) it raises the codepath as something a browser vendor might choose to optimise
> 4) it encourages us to perhaps build on the existing APIs to (maybe only marginally) improve them for this use case.
> 
> -By not including a use case that does exist and is in use we are sending a message to web devs that they are on risky ground and they should probably find a better way to meet the user need.
> 
> Tim.

Received on Monday, 30 January 2023 11:35:11 UTC