So where would transmission support come into play ? In being able to recognize files that include both web and regular torrent ? Or in being to transparently talk to web clients from transmission ? Both ?
> In being able to recognize files that include both web and regular torrent
The actual .torrent file is the same for both, so it already has support there.
> Or in being to transparently talk to web clients from transmission
This. Currently if all peers who have the data of a torrent are webtorrent clients, then transmission won't be able to download that file.
Most importantly, the webtorrent ecosystem is still small, and browser-based webtorrent-only clients suffer because frequently they can't get the file data they need because all the other peers only talk the original-torrent protocol.
Well, webtorrents are just regular torrents using websockets as a transport mechanism, since you can't just have raw sockets from a browser sandbox.
If it supported these as a transport mechanism, transmission would be able to communicate with torrent clients that run in the browser, making the potential number of peers much higher (both for swarms that are mostly in-browser, and for those that have a majority of traditional clients). It would be very useful for seeding peertube videos from transmission, for instance, which was the quoted use-case.
The actual .torrent file is the same for both, so it already has support there.
> Or in being to transparently talk to web clients from transmission
This. Currently if all peers who have the data of a torrent are webtorrent clients, then transmission won't be able to download that file.
Most importantly, the webtorrent ecosystem is still small, and browser-based webtorrent-only clients suffer because frequently they can't get the file data they need because all the other peers only talk the original-torrent protocol.