Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Mon, 24 October 2011 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D09A21F8C9F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.804
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_27=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7NjzGzOh+lus for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A63A21F8C90 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=1440; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319476700; x=1320686300; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9wKaEQCkKk4HvbXugnuhBM6Lh8rTLhXw0/ue6WszgI0=; b=Vw89Zxvrlu1Xsy/55buLIKn21AZSUzMMb6NBxR5wVAxopQNGarVnVV1N fBwuOQRj4xCdCkN66LzU04dp3k6o7eMGSWdeYy9xl03oe0ifXR0dawxQM DggenLBhta1gwl3XUrK3pQ49exodVAd4zanS8yLLxL3Zuk1ZlWtge0to1 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAACdpU6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDqRKBBYFuAQEBAQIBEgEUEzUKBQsLDgouVwY1h16VcQGeHIdfYQSIBowDhSyMTg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,399,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="9194638"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2011 17:18:20 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9OHIKBV008515; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:18:20 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EB0F0985-66AC-4EF9-A5D9-862DD5C7443E@ag-projects.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:18:19 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1107BC89-1AB6-47F7-970A-BCF25955D1E0@cisco.com>
References: <AAB480AA-8F03-4C25-8A7C-55B88D057C24@acmepacket.com> <42322A10-14A7-4600-820D-7612A1B12592@cisco.com> <3747C7CB-C039-4D15-A46C-8FDB9A47AF3A@acmepacket.com> <EB0F0985-66AC-4EF9-A5D9-862DD5C7443E@ag-projects.com>
To: Adrian Georgescu <ag@ag-projects.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:18:22 -0000

+1 

On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:

> WebRTC sounds great!
> 
> Adrian
> 
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't think there is an answer to this yet so I guess we need to figure it out.  I'm ore concerned about the long term explanation to people outside W3C or IETF. Hadriel, with you marketing hat on, you have any suggestions of what we should call the whole thing?
>> 
>> Web 4.0.  ;)
>> 
>> I asked a couple other folks and the consensus seems to be: "WebRTC" for the whole thing.
>> 
>> The rationale is that it's still the Web but with native real-time-communication support, as opposed to real-time-communication but with web support.  For example if you wrote a book about how to write Web-apps for it, you would probably use the term "WebRTC" in the book title.  Another rationale was that it follows the naming scheme for WebM and WebP.
>> 
>> For the API, the consensus was it would be confusing to people if we weren't consistent with W3C docs.
>> 
>> So I propose the following:
>> 
>> WebRTC: the whole shebang
>> WebRTC API: the JS<->Browser API.
>> 
>> -hadriel
>> p.s. personally I've gotten used to the term "RTCWeb", but it may be because of my IETF focus rather than W3C/Web focus.
>> 
>> 
>