Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:50 , Tim Panton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 9 Dec 2014, at 19:31, David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> That’s why I said that saying that a WebRTC implementation, in a browser, is not a WebRTC Browser but a WebRTC-Compatible Endpoint, though formally possible, is questionable — it would appear to be skirting the intent of the spec.
> 
> I’m deeply confused by that remark. To answer the question I think you are asking, (i.e. ’can you show me a non-browser webrtc compliant endpoint?'). The best example I can think of that is public is E/// ’s openwebRTC - which implements both codecs, but doesn’t implement a browser or the w3C javascript API. - Note that they leave the issue of h264 licence fees to the app developer to sort out (although they plan to let it use native os exposed codecs and ride that license I think)


> 
> Or did I misunderstand?’


Only slightly.  An earlier suggestion on this thread was that one could be conformant with the WebRTC specs if one simply claimed that one was building a webrtc-compatible endpoint;  even if the implementation was of webrtc, in a browser, it would not be labeled as “WebRTC Browser”.

That, to me, is sleight of hand;  a neat trick, but not quite what we want to have happen.  I’d rather not suggest it to anyone.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.