Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

status.modern.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#81

Post by cpncrunch »

derefr wrote: post #40
cpncrunch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite - getUserMedia is one part of WebRTC. If you use the 'full' WebRTC (i.e. RTCPeerConnection), you're tied into a certain architecture, which isn't generally useful if you already have a server architecture. getUserMedia is more useful in general for developing web conferencing solutions IMO. I think a lot of browser developers (Safari/IE) are baulking at implementing google's WebRTC. I would hope they would…

I don't see over-engineering in WebRTC; I see the same assisted-peer-to-peer routing required to support the major use-cases of traditional SIP: 1. When people are within the same firewall, they want to be able to communicate directly without routing anything but connection set-up through any servers; and 2. when people are members of the same corporation or mobile ISP, but are behind different firewalls, they want t…

Did you actually get into the internals of WebRTC on your project? That is when you notice the overengineering.

In our product, our customers generally want the session recorded, which doesn't seem possible with WebRTC. Also we need to provide group video, which peer-to-peer isn't very useful for (in terms of efficiency).

That's not to say that WebRTC isn't useful in other use-cases (such as your product). However getUserMedia is more generic because it can be used in web conferencing products like ours. That is why I say that if browser developers don't want to implement the full WebRTC, they should at least implement getUserMedia.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#82

Post by shmerl »

geetee wrote: post #10

I'm bewildered by the many "under consideration" entries. When all the other major players support something, and you want to be taken seriously, why aren't you throwing more engineers at the problem?

They are considering if they can skip some features just to retain some lock in, or competition is already too strong for them to do it. That's "under consideration". "Not considered" means they decided that competition is too weak yet and they can just skip that in order not to increase interoperability (for example WebRTC). Implemented features means they think competition has won and they have no choice but to go along even if they didn't want before (for example WebGL).

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#83

Post by derefr »

cpncrunch wrote: post #81
derefr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see over-engineering in WebRTC; I see the same assisted-peer-to-peer routing required to support the major use-cases of traditional SIP: 1. When people are within the same firewall, they want to be able to communicate directly without routing anything but connection set-up through any servers; and 2. when people are members of the same corporation or mobile ISP, but are behind different firewalls, they want t…

Did you actually get into the internals of WebRTC on your project? That is when you notice the overengineering. In our product, our customers generally want the session recorded, which doesn't seem possible with WebRTC. Also we need to provide group video, which peer-to-peer isn't very useful for (in terms of efficiency). That's not to say that WebRTC isn't useful in other use-cases (such as your product). However ge…

Ah, now I see what you mean. I agree--getUserMedia is useful on its own, with or without WebRTC.

Personally, I do hope they implement the full stack, though, because WebRTC--or ObjectRTC--is useful on its own, too (this is why I was saying they were orthogonal.) WebRTC using pure Data Channels is wonderful for enabling things like BitTorrent-like data sharing and realtime LAN gaming, whether or not there's any videoconferencing going on.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#84

Post by jrd79 »

Can somebody on the IE team comment on when specific SVG features will be added? I am interested in using a tag with a xlink:href to an element in a different SVG file. This is part of the SVG spec and works in the latest versions of Chrome and FireFox, but does not work in IE 11. Any plans to fix this?

My Stack Overflow question on the topic is at:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22516712/svg-use-tag-with...

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#87

Post by jgaylord »

shmerl wrote: post #47

> WebRTC - Not currently planned Fail.

But Object RTC is under consideration. I believe (but don't quote me) that most of the efforts at the W3C are focused on this over WebRTC. Also, you'll notice that the IE team is taking a slightly more conservative approach to the new features. Since many features are still in draft mode and can significantly change, they're implementing features as they mature.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#88

Post by shmerl »

jgaylord wrote: post #87
shmerl wrote: post #47

> WebRTC - Not currently planned Fail.

But Object RTC is under consideration. I believe (but don't quote me) that most of the efforts at the W3C are focused on this over WebRTC. Also, you'll notice that the IE team is taking a slightly more conservative approach to the new features. Since many features are still in draft mode and can significantly change, they're implementing features as they mature.

MS tried to sabotage mandating free codecs for standard real time communications, but W3C managed to put Opus in WebRTC. Not sure what's going on in parallel efforts in this regard but it's a pretty important issue and MS is on the wrong side in this one.
Post reply on HN