Re: [rtcweb] URIs for rtcweb "calls"

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <> Mon, 15 August 2011 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E1C21F8CA6 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.307
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjMyGFkn1XvJ for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA1821F8C9D for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAGxmSU6sGgRS/2dsb2JhbAA5CacwgV6BQAEBBAE4QQULCyElDwJGEwEHAodsuEmDJ4MgBIdfkDAPjAk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,374,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="204483600"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 15 Aug 2011 14:33:58 -0400
X-UNC-Auth-As: tterribe
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7FIXvbn004014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:33:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:57 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101120 Gentoo/2.0.10 SeaMonkey/2.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] URIs for rtcweb "calls"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:33:34 -0000

> For the case where you are setting up something closer to a
> web-chat-with-an-agent-for-the-ad-seen here, I think the amount of
> page context will be very small, and that it will be closer to the
> experience of the browser/app setting up its default widgets for this.

I think over time there will be a desire to include more and more page 
context in such things. But that aside, it becomes a lot less clear to 
me what kind of default widgets would be. For the simple case of 1 audio 
+ 1 video stream, things are reasonably straightforward, but once you 
start talking about local preview, multiple video streams, layout and 
audio panning for conferencing, negotiating new streams in the middle of 
a call, and all the other things which people have been considering in 
the use cases here, there's a fair bit of complexity that a "default" 
widget set has to handle, compared to, say, creating a default <video> 
tag to wrap an URL that points directly at a WebM file. Web site authors 
are likely to have a much easier time handling this complexity, as they 
understand the context of what they're providing and can make 
simplifying assumptions, and present things in a coherent way (tying 
identity to video windows, etc.), but a generic widget set doesn't have 
that luxury, unless we explicitly limit the scope of what it is required 
to support.