
Bringing Interoperable Real-Time Communications to the Web - cleverjake
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2014/10/27/bringing-interoperable-real-time-communications-to-the-web.aspx
======
EdSharkey
Why would I want to develop to ORTC/WebRTC 1.1 instead of WebRTC 1.0? What is
it able to do that WebRTC 1.0 isn't able to do? Is it more or less secure by
design?

Microsoft IE folks, please implement WebRTC 1.0 _as well as_ your draft
standard WebRTC 1.1. As I understand it, Chrome and Firefox can connect via
WebRTC 1.0, it would be very cool if IE11 or 12 could claim the same.

~~~
pthatcherg
Think of WebRTC 1.1 as a slightly lower-level API with more controls for the
same components that exist in WebRTC 1.0. For advanced applications, this
additional control is very important. For basic applications, the differences
in the APIs aren't as significant. One is not more secure than the other.

The WebRTC 1.0 API can be implemented on top of WebRTC 1.1. The wire-level
protocols are the same, and so a WebRTC 1.1 client should be able to connect
to a WebRTC 1.0 client (modulo all the normal interop issues that exist
regardless of the API version). It's just a matter of which API the JS sees.
It may be that by the time IE implements WebRTC 1.1, there will be JS
libraries that implement 1.0 on top of 1.1, so that you could continue using
the 1.0 API if you want, even in IE.

~~~
EdSharkey
Excellent information, thank you.

------
nashashmi
This sucks! I think this a move by Microsoft to render a Skype implementation
incompatible on Chrome and Chromebooks.

NO browser supports this and Microsoft has openly ignored the more widely
implemented WebRTC.

~~~
nashashmi
Or maybe, according to other comments, this is not so bad.

