On 1/31/11 10:12 AM, "Matthew Kaufman" <
matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:
> On 1/29/2011 6:35 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>> That said, even if one asks the question of whether it is a good idea
>> for us to pick something, I think the answer is no. The enormous
>> benefit of the web model is its ability for innovation and velocity.
>> Standardization is not needed for communications within the domain of
>> the provider; new features can be developed and deployed as quickly as
>> they can be conceived.
>
> Agreed. Consider the case of Gmail (or any other web-based email)
>
> Did every web browser on the planet need to be upgraded to speak IMAP or
> SMTP in order for Gmail to be implemented? No.
>
> Does the JavaScript that Gmail sends down to your browser in order to
> implement its UI need to be standardized among web email platforms? No.
>
> Does Google need to use the same JavaScript libraries and PHP back-end
> that SquirrelMail uses in order to implement a web email application? No.
>
> Can Google change that JavaScript tomorrow without breaking
> interoperability? Yes, and they probably will.
>
> But could Gmail be as successful without the worldwide SMTP
> infrastructure it ties in to? Probably not.
>
> I see the same situation here. A web browser with real-time
> communication capabilities will work in conjunction with a web site that
> serves up the HTML and JavaScript that makes up the calling application.
> For some applications, this will be sufficient. For others, one will
> want to implement SIP or XMPP/Jingle or something else in order to
> gateway these calls to other networks. The SIP implementation can live
> in the JavaScript, up in the web server, in a separate gateway, or any
> combination thereof.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
> _______________________________________________