3 ms·
Sure, that's the point of the standards process. Apple made their argument as a full member of the W3C and other standards committees. If they weren't convincin
by DougWebb 10y ago
Sure, that's the point of the standards process. Apple made their argument as a full member of the W3C and other standards committees. If they weren't convincing enough and the committee choose to go another way with the standard, then it's Apple's responsibility to accept that decision. After all, if the decision had gone their way, they'd expect the other vendors to adhere to it.
- saryant 10y agoA standards body is not a suicide pact. If the standard in insecure, Apple should absolutely refuse to implement it.
- DougWebb 10y agoIf a standard is insecure, all of the members of the standards body should be able to recognize that and change the standard. If that hasn't happened, then the other members must not agree that the standard has a security problem. Maybe it's something else Apple wanted to do that's conflicting with the standard and causing the security problem, just for them.
- stephenr 10y agoYou're not considering the obvious: different parties put different importance on security, performance, etc. Webrtc absolutely has a security/privacy issue whereby local network information is exposed to the JavaScript environment of the page. So, if Google don't think that's a problem, maybe you should ask them why not.