Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2014-11-26 18:09 GMT+01:00 Adam Roach <[e-mail]>:
> On 11/26/14 03:15, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>
>> IMO, mandatory codec revisiting has to be done for all webrtc entities.
>> Why not doing it for web browsers when one codec is proved to be royalty
>> free?
>
>
> The rationale here is browser accommodation for very constrained "WebRTC
> compatible" devices, which will most typically be concerned with browser
> interoperation. The example that's been tossed around in this space is the
> "WebRTC doorbell" -- when someone rings the bell, you navigate to its
> interface using WebRTC, and stream an image from a small, embedded camera.
> In these kinds of very-low-cost devices, you're going to likely see hardware
> video encoding (e.g. do a web search for NVS2200), which will likely be one
> codec or another, but not both.
>
> The goal is continued browser support for such devices in perpetuity.


So potential new open source browser vendors will have to deal with
H264 license/patent issues even within the next 6 years just because
the "goal is continued browser support for [old video devices] in
perpetuity". And that goal seems to be more important than making a
W3C/IETF standard 100% free of royalties and patents stuff.

May I know where in the WG chapter is that goal defined please?

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>