Relationship of the proposed W3C RTC group with WHATWG
Hi, There is currently a whole lot of ongoing work in the WHATWG around real-time web communications [whatwg-spec#rtc] [html-tracker]. What is the relationship between the proposed W3C activity [w3c-rtc-charter] and the work currently being done in the WHATWG? While there is an obvious need for IETF activity on underlying protocols, codecs and formats I'm unsure as to how a W3C RTC group is going to effectively manage any overlaps here. Any clarifications would be helpful. - Rich [whatwg-spec#rtc] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/video-conferencin... [html-tracker] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker [w3c-rtc-charter] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/webrtc-charter.html
On 03/16/11 12:46, Rich Tibbett wrote:
Hi,
There is currently a whole lot of ongoing work in the WHATWG around real-time web communications [whatwg-spec#rtc] [html-tracker].
What is the relationship between the proposed W3C activity [w3c-rtc-charter] and the work currently being done in the WHATWG? The proposed W3C WG is intended to be the W3C mirror of the IETF activity in RTCWEB. I believe the PeerConnection API currently proposed for inclusion in the HTML5 spec would be better processed as a work item of that WG. Obviously, the editor of the WHATWG HTML spec doesn't feel like waiting for that activity before proposing something as part of HTML5.
The current proposal is a lot better than the previous ConnectionPeer spec, so I can't blame him much, but I still have technical issues with it.
While there is an obvious need for IETF activity on underlying protocols, codecs and formats I'm unsure as to how a W3C RTC group is going to effectively manage any overlaps here.
So am I. Input here and to the WHATWG and W3C on what people think would be appropriate methods to manage the division of labour would be helpful. I have my opinions, but I'm not the only one whose opinion matters.
Any clarifications would be helpful.
- Rich
[whatwg-spec#rtc] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/video-conferencin...
[html-tracker] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker
[w3c-rtc-charter] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/webrtc-charter.html _______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list RTC-Web@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
While there is an obvious need for IETF activity on underlying protocols, codecs and formats I'm unsure as to how a W3C RTC group is going to effectively manage any overlaps here. So am I. Input here and to the WHATWG and W3C on what people think would be appropriate methods to manage the division of labour would be helpful. I have my opinions, but I'm not the only one whose opinion matters.
The best suggestion I can come up with is to set up formal cross-review milestones. That is, the IETF RTCWEB might produce framework or API requirements documents that the W3C RTCWEB WG could review, and once there is agreement on those and things are further along, the IETF RTCWEB WG could review a W3C RTCWEB API document for compatibiity with those documents. Of course, this assumes that the IETF and W3C WGs work at a pace that permits this kind of cross-review to occur in a timely way. If the groups get way out of sync on timelines (e.g. the IETF RTCWEB WG complete all its milestones and closes, and the W3C RTCWEB WG is still in progress) then things could get tough. However, even in that (extreme) case, there would probably be interim drafts that the groups could look at. to make sure things were going in the right direction.
On 03/23/11 17:10, Bernard Aboba wrote:
While there is an obvious need for IETF activity on underlying protocols, codecs and formats I'm unsure as to how a W3C RTC group is going to effectively manage any overlaps here. So am I. Input here and to the WHATWG and W3C on what people think would be appropriate methods to manage the division of labour would be helpful. I have my opinions, but I'm not the only one whose opinion matters.
The best suggestion I can come up with is to set up formal cross-review milestones. That is, the IETF RTCWEB might produce framework or API requirements documents that the W3C RTCWEB WG could review, and once there is agreement on those and things are further along, the IETF RTCWEB WG could review a W3C RTCWEB API document for compatibiity with those documents.
To me, this seems like both too much and too little; it would require setting up another level of bureaucratic complexity with work items that have to be signed off on by multiple participants, many of which are the same on both sides of the virtual "fence", while it doesn't do anything that prevents real disagreements or disconnects to occur. My preferred working method would be to have each group acknowledge that its output only makes sense in conjunction with the output of the other (I think the charters of the 2 already do that), and to rely on cross membership and people's desire to get useful output to get the harmonization we want. Harald
participants (3)
-
Bernard Aboba -
Harald Alvestrand -
Rich Tibbett