Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Alternatives 10 and 11: Merge?

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 25/11/2013 9:16 PM, Chenxin (Xin) wrote:
> [Xin]I forget who proposed 10 first, but there are differences between 
> new 10 and origin 10. In origin 10, H.261 has little chance be 
> implemented. I don't think it is possible that one browser do not 
> implement both H.264 and vp8, but implement H.261. even it is 
> possible, only implement H.261 will not be helpful for interoperation. 
> In alternatives 10, H.261 has much more possible be used, which is 
> designed for interoperation purpose. So I agree to change alternatives 
> 10. to 10. MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.261}

You're missing the point of MTI. If H.261 is MTI, nothing prevents you 
from supporting VP8 and H.264 anyway. It is possible for mobile 
applications that interact with web clients to only need 
lower-resolution videos (think: accessibility applications). It is quite 
reasonable for them to only implement H.261 and no one will be harmed 
because specialized applications are not meant to act as generic web 
browsers.

Gili