Re: [rtcweb] Usecases for innovation.

Cullen Jennings <> Tue, 08 November 2011 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3941F0C70 for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:57:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.439
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f96FfbBxprcG for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:57:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320221F0C6F for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:57:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2112; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1320793047; x=1322002647; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=++pfCUJUH2BVvFjIPK9Fo7FxJjRvC3qEImhIFnoe2Oc=; b=MrGMK3D5r6vmGvf6pEQLlI1ps8A8bo7ELPuGOcZfZUg+c2BexHHXVk8O FUO0M+wmSjg5gCaJhjv71WrbOjqllj7ah6T3X2FF62mZqU4q6Sy8anD+s Uvquv3ygE/1qjcK7uF6Dj8v8IWTEzPy6fB/W1y34NXQtmBe8Od87952F7 c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,479,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="13056041"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2011 22:57:26 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA8MvMEp027166; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:57:22 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:57:22 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Tim Panton <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usecases for innovation.
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: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:57:27 -0000

Hmm ... both of these seem to work fine with the direction we are going....both require the W3C getMedia API to allow JS access to the data so it's more of a W3C issue than IETF but my read of the tea leafs is that is the direction W3C is going. At the TPAC meeting Opera bought up good use cases for this and they seemed to get a good reception that people wanted to solve them.  My recollection was there were only one or two people at IETF objecting to JS access to media ( and come to think of they were all fans of the "low level" API :-) For purpose of argument, one could imagine implementing the Kinect stereo correlation in JS and just using any two camera along with auto calibration of geometry. That would be cool....

On Nov 1, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Tim Panton wrote:

> I've repeatedly been asked for use-cases for innovative applications of webRTC
> to justify my contention that we should be providing a low-level framework,
> not an embedded legacy compatibility application.
> It's a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question, there is no good answer.
> By definition we don't know what innovative uses are yet, so we are reduced to
> guessing, which sounds unconvincing.
> By chance, this weekend I was exposed to 2 innovative uses of real-time-communications
> in a browser that _won't_ fit in the current looking-over-its-shoulder scheme.
> 1) H264 implementation in Javascript 
> 2) Kinect as an input device for a virtual receptionist in a real reception area
> 	(Voxeo's as it happens).
> Neither of these are production ready - or indeed necessarily a good idea,
> but the fact that neither (minor) innovation fits at all into our brand new framework
> should give us pause for thought. (but given the pell-mell dash to be compatible
> with last century's deskphones I don't imagine it will).
> Tim.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list