IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 17 December 2014 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3AEC1A1AEB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:24:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xmAR2K18YPNp for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AACA1A1A5B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE1E7C3776 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:24:42 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qruOInKsXCco for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:24:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:ed33:64f:45c0:8aa8]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F35057C064D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:24:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5491A038.503@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:24:40 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <548F0E28.8040503@andyet.net> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <54905132.40105@alvestrand.no> <5B1166AB-A2EA-4F83-ABB2-8947D044B159@apple.com> <54909198.7040409@nostrum.com> <FC77807D-E811-46DE-920C-2019C2E0A563@apple.com> <228CCD7E-143B-4ACA-9730-D3D6BB07694A@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMBjCOnv+b7yNUSKCUscgQOozEcAvuCmymzyCY8+Kudczw@mail.gmail.com> <F7F3EFE2-7258-4AE6-B736-71850692429B@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F7F3EFE2-7258-4AE6-B736-71850692429B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000503020004090603040008"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/XcL80Cja76Iztqg4Deh_JUf2c5U
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding everywhere but the Web
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:24:47 -0000

On 12/17/2014 12:32 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> 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.

Isn't it rather indicative of the fact that a couple of Web browser 
vendors haven't chosen to ship WebRTC support yet?

We'll get the differences between Firefox and Chrome/Opera ironed out 
eventually. But it's hard to emulate "deep" functionality like this on 
top of a browser that refuses to support it.

>
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 5:43 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com 
> <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bernard Aboba 
>> <bernard.aboba@gmail.com <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:18 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com
>>     <mailto:singer@apple.com>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status