Re: [rtcweb] URIs for rtcweb "calls"

Ted Hardie <> Fri, 12 August 2011 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6EB21F8997 for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ImSFNhiGwa4j for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9332721F88B6 for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so2588454gxk.31 for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4b0k3mpFj+xWM+N5GEIdpF14ix9x7IrPFJdRjuaVISA=; b=wi+YAEi7YXjxmcBPDn5pOdKT0ttFAY4nGl3hxOdWijsRovWJ0amFEYgYHsHtDKZyR3 b5W1qFIRqJZ3a8J0K2FW1fldGI8vEdTgNpMSfZddKXALtIsULehc74RIxcdOYnxtxaju 9CgU2y+v1BubR/f/jRNz7iPuBDhC1i2OOquhI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id f43mr4500087yhh.262.1313180236345; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:17:16 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: Matthew Kaufman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:16:42 -0000

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Matthew Kaufman
<>; wrote:
> On 8/12/2011 10:47 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> Do others think defining something like this would be useful?
> No. For the same reason I don't think that Gmail should be implemented by
> going to "" and having the browser implement a
> mail reading user interface or it own (or even having a page that contains
> "<showIMAPinterface mailbox='inbox' server=''/>").

So, one of the aims here was to allow you to specify what the
signaling path was separate from whom you were calling.  In the case
where they were similar, you'd basically end up with:


(That is the authority/signaling path would be the same as the current origin).

I'm also not sure that having the ability to create a compact
representation of this equals baking a phone into the browser.  To
take a slightly different example, imagine that I'm using a gaming
site and I want to invite friends to come play the game with me.  A
URI that I could use to paste into a chat window or send in email
would be handy, as a simple way to give an out-of-band pointer to a
rtc-web context.  That would still fire up the full game context,
slotting the user into the game (rather than making a phone call).

Hope that explains the range of things I'd like to cover better.



> We should be providing components that allow for all manners for real-time
> communication applications to be built using HTML and JavaScript, not baking
> a phone into the browser.
> Matthew Kaufman