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

Bernard Aboba <> Tue, 16 December 2014 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A0C1A0373 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:32:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ie-cp04sdPV for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:32:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C63EE1A0367 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:32:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r5so11115791qcx.2 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:32:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jpCUAGWfdXLP0M4I/MhDi8Df+UtgGOY+Yjg2bF/prMs=; b=p0NW0idXUiFl4XLBmtbZLHginB60lgsJBx/mTwZ1Oo+3xfLUdklUiI9z0HKBS1X3Xg cqQFEs9OiKBl/Sq3obPh+8IQIAQO74OwVWzrMCE4lqhs/wR/nl7DY4V1OeeVJRtWwFcR oWglDI+5uTBnWxEb17sGgfb1f1GaiA8fifDQax7SaoWRTQKKV+Sl8dvHI3M6QJgCNBNU S/N2c41GeeLBCLhM2xlN8EJ26OSuuCrVr+IMSmZly1uSfEJLfypEEAQ5hDo0c7BDjkX2 2gRr8k0ozi0cuhqsGe/VXOqNiyq9aJA2GiAkpBXPWwbpurI3sHQwUyB0//Qkfj2zePxQ 5eOQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w3mr72028469qag.51.1418772768888; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:32:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id y10sm2008600qad.23.2014. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:32:47 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-3A404D70-7FC7-4248-8779-352F24586739"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bernard Aboba <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B440)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:32:47 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding everywhere but the Web
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:32:53 -0000

It is possible to write a single stream audio/video app that runs on any browser.  But if you include the video features that enable collaborative Web apps like Skype for Web, Hangouts, Jitsi Meet, etc. then yes there are no polyfills today.  So these Web apps need to be written for a particular browser.  By now people are getting used to installing a browser to run their favorite WebRTC web app. That's not the IETF's problem really (WebRTC protocols and open source SDKs implementing same are in much better shape, and are being widely used). But it is indicative of the mountain that WebRTC needs to be climb to be a successful Web standard. 

> On Dec 16, 2014, at 5:43 PM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bernard Aboba <> wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:18 PM, David Singer <> 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