Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

Ben Strong <> Thu, 14 March 2013 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2060611E821C for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0BS8luh+GNcm for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B8A11E8166 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l13so4572344wie.0 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=bdWHOBlOFuBV+bf42ZaQ2JiYdP8Ypu440IewFxWR4+I=; b=oYFkNqfgcZFrY/lepjOl3hChN1Sm19VrC8Wd1nIrORkAgbjGFxb7ueA3HRFsX8bsJX SZCfCn5tBWjYs8hGTTr3DD9PaxhT8mh+C0zeoxGEj7oGdcgkClHKdHTPi4m6hULFha1L zX+i0RzKHZ+lSD/7ZuO6znSEwXIdm5JGgdkWpSqYOb40tTW5pIDCiPAFGFczCFVjqZQ/ Edv7scx+Pm0jC1mm/a2RKznV4FxbwAkmiTvCm5qJomRocwPOBc8M5MoDP4QbeAO1J7dD oyE4a1QTn++1jzFSiPBLNVnI0JHjH1nLtLrBU3WcaUYpJ8UZlV3IN/Kl0VFE8ShghfFs g41A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ea4mr6445730wib.23.1363290295916; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:55 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: hZWBWx8JjHYlD2Ap1bHbjaZ-l3E
Message-ID: <>
From: Ben Strong <>
To: Monty Montgomery <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04426c4ed06d9c04d7e7c12b"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlh7kBrkUr8PrvptxTk0MrIUdcgoUC3G6kvV3+owtOMKvcG6ZL1+9XqAcsSM1N+tI6HbYyM
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:45:08 -0000

> It's clear by inference that Ben was speaking of fully FOSS software.

Thanks for clarifying. That's what I should have said. Let me try to say
the whole thing more briefly:

Choosing H.264 means that there will be no standards-compliant FOSS
implementations. So to any argument for H.264, you can tack on "which is
more important that having FOSS implementations".

Real developers (at least the ones I talk to) care a lot about the
practical interoperability problems this will cause. They care _more_ about
this than they care about most of the other arguments that come up. And
they are much more concerned about interoperability among browsers than
between browsers and legacy equipment.