Sorry for being relatively cryptic in my original message.
What I meant by "not good for market adoption" is that Microsoft, after
suffering a setback in the W3C, has decided that it's better to try to
fragment the market by deploying an intentionally non-interoperable
implementation than it is to make the relatively minor compromises
necessary to play nice with the rest of the world.
/a
On 1/20/13 19:26, Maire Reavy wrote:
I'm not convinced this tells us anything about market adoption.
There's nothing new here IMO other than there is now a plugin demo to
go along with the old CU-RTC Web proposal. The folks involved in this
demo are still very active members of the working groups defining WebRTC.
For those who haven't been following this story in the press:
Microsoft basically coded up a demo using plugins to show off CU-RTC
Web (an alternative, lower level API to PeerConnection -- one of the
major building blocks for WebRTC) and is trying to re-argue the same
points in the press now that they argued several months ago to the
working group with no new news, information, or insights. Last time
we discussed this in the working group, several of us said that there
were some interesting ideas in CU-RTC Web that we may want to look at
as an extention to WebRTC after our work defining PeerConnection is
complete (or at least a version 1 of the spec is complete). In short,
CU-RTC Web didn't enable any use cases that PeerConnection didn't
handle; the Peer Connection API would be more easily understood and
used than the CU-RTC Web API by the typical web/app developer; and
the SDP ugliness that Microsoft complains about (which is hidden from
web/app developers using the API) also potentially eases interop with
legacy SIP equipment, which many working group members think could be
useful in promoting adoption of WebRTC.
I'm not looking to start a discussion of PeerConnection vs CU-RTC Web
here. The working group mailing lists are the best place for any
discussion like that. I just wanted to provide some of the
counterargument to the argument Microsoft makes in the article below.
Having said all that, anything that inspires the working group members
to move a little faster in discussions and decision making is a good
thing IMO. :-)
-Maire
On 1/20/2013 1:31 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Not good news for market adoption...
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/microsoft-goes-its-own-way-with-web-audiovideo-spec-despite-w3c-rebuff/
/a
_______________________________________________
dev-media mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
--
Adam Roach
Principal Platform Engineer
[email protected]
+1 650 903 0800 x863
_______________________________________________
dev-media mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
