[Jingle] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups.

Peter Thatcher pthatcher at google.com
Mon Jul 22 16:56:41 UTC 2013


For those sorts of questions, I'm afraid I'm not the right person to ask.
But I'll forward your questions on to some others that might be able to
answer them.
On Jul 22, 2013 9:24 AM, "Dave Cridland" <dave at cridland.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher at google.com>wrote:
>
>> The original question was about the relationship between WebRTC and other
>> Google products, which I can't comment on.
>>
>> Do you have something else specifically that you would like me to comment
>> on?  I might have to say "no, I can't comment", but you're free to ask.
>>
>>
> For the most part, I was really angling for something more proactive than
> answering specific questions. Pitching in with "We'd find $THING very
> useful", or "We'll be implementing $THING, but we have to do $REQUIREMENT,
> so this proposal won't work for us" at the right moment could make a lot of
> difference.
>
> The only real question I have is whether the current regression to a
> walled garden is a permanent affair or not. Obviously if Google is
> explicitly ruling out federating (and, for that matter, allowing
> third-party clients), then while we're still interested in your
> experiences, it's going to alter the way in which they impact the whole.
>
> I'm not asking for a commitment to support federation next week, of course
> - but if Google would be interested in revisiting interoperable video etc
> in principle at some point, I'm sure there's plenty of us that would be
> keen to remove as many technical barriers as possible.
>
> Dave.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20130722/2f653755/attachment.html>


More information about the Jingle mailing list