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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

It's also worth observing that a lot of the problem with multiple stream
polyfills
isn't a result of the state of standardization but just that Firefox
doesn't do
it yet, so you have to simulate with multiple PCs. We're working on it now,
though.

-Ekr




On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Simon Pietro Romano <[e-mail]>
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.
>
>
> Based on my experience, if you stick to the Maximum Common Divisor (e.g.,
> by avoiding SSRC multiplexing, on hold, some forms of bundling, etc) you
> can still offer a rich end-user experience on a wide set of browsers
> (Chrome, Firefox, Opera at least). This is indeed what we try and do with
> the 'stable' version of Meetecho (which you probably forgot to mention).
> BTW, I think this is unavoidable as long as the standardization process has
> not yet reached the steady state.
>
> Simon
>
> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:18 PM, David Singer <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>                              _\\|//_
>                                   ( O-O )
>    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                      Simon Pietro Romano
>                Universita' di Napoli Federico II
>                       Computer Engineering Department
>              Phone: [phone] -- Fax: [phone]
>                                            e-mail: [e-mail]
>
>     <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli
>     idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
>                                      oooO
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                  \ (            (   )
>                                   \_)          ) /
>                                                                        (_/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>