Re: [rtcweb] On video codec for rtcweb

+1,

L.

Il giorno Fri, 23 Mar 2012 04:40:40 -0700
"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> ha scritto:

> Stefan Hakansson LK wrote:
> > So, I propose that h.264 should be mandatory to implement.
> 
> Mozilla strongly opposes such a proposal. Many will be familiar with
> our announcements regarding our use of platform codecs on B2G and
> possibly Android last week. The primary reasoning behind that
> decision, i.e. the one factor that was not in our power to change,
> was the availability of content on websites. This is not a problem
> for WebRTC, as browsers control both ends of the communication.
> 
> What _is_ a problem is licensing and distributing encoders in an 
> open-source project. This is quite a bit different than using system 
> decoders, as outside of mobile, encoders are usually not available,
> and even if they were, they might not have particularly good quality,
> nor the features to control latency, loss robustness, and other
> aspects necessary for real-time communication.
> 
> If you thought that a concession in one place would make Mozilla more 
> likely to compromise in others, I assure you the opposite is true. 
> Maintaining the use of RF codecs in WebRTC is now even more important 
> than it was before. See the words directly from Mozilla's CTO: 
> http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.platform/msg/53892ad3ea9eeb98
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com