Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology

Victor Pascual Avila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com> Mon, 24 October 2011 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
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 8D1211F0C3F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_27=1, 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 3XrUv9e8WrCX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5F921F8C9F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnv1 with SMTP id v1so7200559ggn.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j9QH7M4uQSUyHsfB0NnAXkRjTzOxC+P3+s7rb78MbB8=; b=c0L6fJZ5E3hesOW3Py23U22jeYTRyP0r+wiCA0sJgljalX/VRRO2mv+CNX+KllfVlq THdAJ1T3R5GxwKuYc7dHafAkTREVaSuLu2Az3jTOgHFxDcaqHC4pWjaqF3ViLN/clxlz YX0r1/5/nzM4/6X8UWcKTu7E+pwO+5YIc6Ajo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.72.73 with SMTP id b9mr49887273pbv.100.1319477547243; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.172.10 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EB0F0985-66AC-4EF9-A5D9-862DD5C7443E@ag-projects.com>
References: <AAB480AA-8F03-4C25-8A7C-55B88D057C24@acmepacket.com> <42322A10-14A7-4600-820D-7612A1B12592@cisco.com> <3747C7CB-C039-4D15-A46C-8FDB9A47AF3A@acmepacket.com> <EB0F0985-66AC-4EF9-A5D9-862DD5C7443E@ag-projects.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:32:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGTXFp_zPqmMKdvvMpChHB8HXZQ76ViZksAHpWVNzeuvYYHKVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Pascual Avila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Georgescu <ag@ag-projects.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology
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: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:32:37 -0000

+1

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Adrian Georgescu <ag@ag-projects.com> wrote:
> WebRTC sounds great!
>
> Adrian
>
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there is an answer to this yet so I guess we need to figure it out.  I'm ore concerned about the long term explanation to people outside W3C or IETF. Hadriel, with you marketing hat on, you have any suggestions of what we should call the whole thing?
>>
>> Web 4.0.  ;)
>>
>> I asked a couple other folks and the consensus seems to be: "WebRTC" for the whole thing.
>>
>> The rationale is that it's still the Web but with native real-time-communication support, as opposed to real-time-communication but with web support.  For example if you wrote a book about how to write Web-apps for it, you would probably use the term "WebRTC" in the book title.  Another rationale was that it follows the naming scheme for WebM and WebP.
>>
>> For the API, the consensus was it would be confusing to people if we weren't consistent with W3C docs.
>>
>> So I propose the following:
>>
>> WebRTC: the whole shebang
>> WebRTC API: the JS<->Browser API.
>>
>> -hadriel
>> p.s. personally I've gotten used to the term "RTCWeb", but it may be because of my IETF focus rather than W3C/Web focus.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>



-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila