-
-
Replying to @imlazar
@imlazar MS is ignoring WebRTC in favor of their own spin on stuff, as per usual... despite the vote count in favor: http://bit.ly/1KKvwbr2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JeremyLaurenson
.
@JeremyLaurenson@imlazar not accurate! browsers are moving towards ORTC, which is what we're implementing and not a MS invention2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @jacobrossi
@jacobrossi@imlazar If the goal is to be interoperable with the web, as stated, then why ignore WebRTC 1.0 despite votes to the contrary?2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JeremyLaurenson
@JeremyLaurenson@imlazar apps aren't successfully writing interoperable, scalable rtc 1.0, even Hangouts still requires NPAPI in places 1/32 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jacobrossi
@JeremyLaurenson@imlazar and work is being done to minimize interop differences between 1.0 and 1.1 ... 2/31 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jacobrossi
@JeremyLaurenson@imlazar when we talked to those that voted for "WebRTC" they overwhelmingly tell us their vote isn't 1.0 specific 3/31 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jacobrossi
@jacobrossi@JeremyLaurenson@imlazar WebRTC isn't really an interoperable spec-it's a string protocol delegating to underspecified ISO spec1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @wycats
@wycats@JeremyLaurenson@imlazar well put. Also ORTC's not "Microsoft spin on stuff" considering we didn't create it and Google edits spec2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@jacobrossi @JeremyLaurenson @imlazar this reminds me a bit of WebSQL vs. IndexedDB. WebSQL seemed "defacto standard" but underspecified
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.