Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)

[Leon Geyser <[e-mail]>]

>
> [BA] No. It just removes the stick that each side can use to beat the
> other side.  The need for interoperability still remains, and most likely
> will either be addressed by the marketplace choosing one over the other
> decisively
>

I don't see how that would address it unless the browser vendors really
care about interoperability. My browser implements the WebRTC without a MTI
video codec spec and implements H.264; why whould I care about the others?
I mean the <video> tag has been out there for ages and the marketplace did
not dictate that H.264 or VP8 should be implemented. It still is split and
probably will stay like that.

or if deployment is split, by support for (limited) codec extensibility


Sorry, I don't really understand. How would this '(limited) codec
extensibility' work?

On 16 March 2013 23:17, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 15:18, "Leon Geyser" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion there really is a need for a MTI video codec for
> interoperability between browsers.
> >
> > Here are some scenarios on MTI decisions:
> >
> > -- Decide on no MTI codec:
> > This would split the browers in two sides.
>
> [BA] No. It just removes the stick that each side can use to beat the
> other side.  The need for interoperability still remains, and most likely
> will either be addressed by the marketplace choosing one over the other
> decisively, or if deployment is split, by support for (limited) codec
> extensibility.