When I first read the Overview Section (currently Section 1), I felt that the paragraph below would be easier to read if a vertical list format was used.
This specification defines several objects: RTCDtlsTransport (Section 2), RTCIceTransport (Section 3), RTCIceListener (Section 4), RTCRtpSender (Section 5), RTCRtpReceiver (Section 6), RTCRtpListener (Section 7), RTCDtmfSender (Section 9), RTCDataChannel (Section 10), and RTCSctpTransport (Section 11). RTP dictionaries are described in Section 8, and the Statistics API is described in Section 12.
Also, if the Sections (above) were links to their respective Sections (Section 2, Section 3, etc.) within the specification, it may be useful.
Regarding the graphic in the Overview, I was not able to determine which side was the sender or receiver until I noticed RTPSender and RTPReceiver within the graphic.
Would it be useful to show which sides are the Sender and Receiver?
Furthermore, the object names in the graphic do not contain the RTC prefix.
While the object names within the graphic are more readable to me (like it is), should there be consistency with the object names?
Example, should RtpSender be changed to RTCRtpSender etc. ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
…cribed in Issue 57 w3c#57 - Added support for getRemoteCertificates(), as described in Issue 67 w3c#67 - Removed filterParameters and createParameters functions, as described in Issue 80 w3c#80 - Partially addressed capabilities issues, as described in Issue 84 w3c#84 Addressed WebIDL type issues described in Issue 88 w3c#88 - Addressed Overview section issues described in Issue 91 w3c#91 - Address readonly attribute issues described in Issue 92 w3c#92 - Added ICE restart method to address the issue described in Issue 93 w3c#93 - Added onerror eventhandler to sender and receiver objects as described in Issue 95 w3c#95