Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Randell Jesup <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
> 3) Inaki's (sorry about the cedilla) point about "website-based libraries
> can be updated more often than ones baked into a browser" is valid, but it
> has a flip-side - the swarm of smaller users of webrtc are likely to
> download a version of jSIP.js (or whatever) and are not likely to actively
> track updates.  My understanding is that this is rife in the use of things
> like jquery - upgrading is time-consuming and risks breakage, and requires
> QA.  People grab one version and never change it - while Firefox for example
> updates every 6 weeks.  (He may have a better argument with IE users,
> especially in business, but my point still holds.)


This is my understanding as well, and it's something that is encouraged by
the way that these
libraries are distributed, namely that the obvious behavior if you go to the
JQuery site is to
just download one of the canned versions, which of course is specific. Even
if you use one
of the CDN versions (see:
http://docs.jquery.com/Downloading_jQuery#CDN_Hosted_jQuery),
the links are all to specific versions. So, the consequence is that people
en up nailed to
one version.

This doesn't necessarily mean that client libraries will upgrade more slowly
than the browsers,
but as far as I know it's not a decided question either way.

Best,
-Ekr