Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding everywhere but the Web

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384B41A008F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:43:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7X4MZwVn56xT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:43:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5621A00B1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id tr6so13927852ieb.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:43:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NrpeHWdmAnV/fD4lZMXZ3SekgpJ97l3tosrf8LB92jA=; b=Bdu2gyV/mYLMsLwczw4XxsyOb9rfc2Kd8SHnJkXBNxPxy0t8qSu+XcT753ImBW4nWK aajX1EjPER30KWKrlZbpVwWAmdrZps6hu0Co9Vnf1KMgsJZJj0fB0I3/JTbZ1ri8KOhL zZQ7xY/0f2Boy8hQ9P5jXBmMqFVa74I3fdRpFnN6xngZUrzTUn183ReenKpM1TCpMZ1r 1OzyYvmYs6XrSkftTpAl9YWvt9ruv3sFOsBiVb+0EMNMOr2IV6EYwpywCCEvlLyp8srK Qn6QSjJhwGycK8nFtzrIJ9J5NYgpF19vxqJ1Ve394eSHsrRiw1BHHNnyFVs+Sxp9nAfg hM2Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.138.131 with SMTP id c3mr37379591ioj.0.1418769831780; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:43:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.107.145 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:43:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <228CCD7E-143B-4ACA-9730-D3D6BB07694A@gmail.com>
References: <548F0E28.8040503@andyet.net> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <54905132.40105@alvestrand.no> <5B1166AB-A2EA-4F83-ABB2-8947D044B159@apple.com> <54909198.7040409@nostrum.com> <FC77807D-E811-46DE-920C-2019C2E0A563@apple.com> <228CCD7E-143B-4ACA-9730-D3D6BB07694A@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:43:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBjCOnv+b7yNUSKCUscgQOozEcAvuCmymzyCY8+Kudczw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e9864d76830050a5d1783
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/04bqVZAJJPSQfAk3OHjuYpadoO8
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding everywhere but the Web
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:43:55 -0000

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:18 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
> However the browser model is very different. The browser app developer
> typically cannot compile their own browser or fix browser bugs so they have
> to live with what is there. Today's polyfills typically only work for audio
> so writing a multi-browser video app that supports multiple video streams
> is a nightmare even without a codec problem.
>
>
​So, can I confirm here that you mean polyfill in the same way ​Remy Sharp
did?  That is, a piece of Javascript that replicates an API and
functionality that the browser lacks?

And so you are asserting that there are downloadable Javascript bits that
replicate both the audio functionality and relevant API, but there are no
downloadable Javascript bits that replicate the video functionality and
relevant API?

Have I gotten your meaning?

Ted