Re: [rtcweb] A plea for simplicity, marketability - and... who are we designing RTCWEB for?

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 19 October 2011 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6907021F8C86 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.638
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xzv+pOBHgXpX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E889521F8C84 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so1573260vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.35.34 with SMTP id e2mr6885188vdj.52.1319035125782; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9C8CA816-65FB-41A0-999C-4C43128CAAB4@danyork.org>
References: <9C8CA816-65FB-41A0-999C-4C43128CAAB4@danyork.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:38:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmMibDWJjOSnFg2iEmXsmkHVxn-vpyp6OJPNHv7RqScbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Dan York <dan-ietf@danyork.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A plea for simplicity, marketability - and... who are we designing RTCWEB for?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:09:37 -0000

2011/10/19 Dan York <dan-ietf@danyork.org>;:
> The question is - will the RTCWEB/WEBRTC API/protocol/whatever be so simple
> and easy that web developers will choose to use it over
> Flash/Phono/Twilio/Java/whatever to add RTC functions to their web apps?

You miss the fact that RTCweb is a technology, not a JavaScript
library. When RTCweb becomes a reality there will appear thousands of
JavaScript libraries implementing a custom signaling protocol. Web
developers will choose the best one or the easiest one, in the same
way lot of web developers include JQuery library for making JS effects
and manage the DOM in their web pages without knowing aout JQuery
internals.

RTC is about realtime communication. Web is not about communication,
so we cannot expect to build "something" that requires no knowledge or
RTC protocols. Web developers will choose some existing and successful
RTCweb JS library and include it within their web apps. Of course, it
also requires some code in the server, but that will be not so hard,
and 100% feasible using PHP or whatever language.

RTCweb means real integration of VoIP in the WWW world. So VoIP folks
must learn something about WWW and WWW folks must learn something
about VoIP (not too much when RTCweb JS libraries appear). A web
developer has not the right to claim "I want cool new features but I
don't want to learn new stuff".

Take a look to Google Maps (web version). It contains a really complex
JavaScript logic, but the tools are there available for any one (it's
JavaScript and AJAX in the client side, no more) and any developer
could code something similar (having enough knowledge). And I've not
seen a web developer complaining because "doing it is so hard".

Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;