Re: [rtcweb] Adam Fineberg's choices was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 08/01/2014 6:16 AM, Tim Panton wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2014, at 17:42, Adam Fineberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>> 	• Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
>>> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Shouldn't differentiate between types without clearer delineation.
> I think that's entirely fair - here's a draft definition:
> Browser:
> 	An entity that supports multiple usages through dynamically loadable code (javascript) and can render arbitrary user interfaces
> using HTML5. (e.g chrome)
> Other entities:
> 	A non-browser entity supports a single dedicated usecase and will lack the ability to dynamically load a user interface or code
> to support differing use cases. (e.g. a doorbell)
>
> It's like blank tape vs pre-recorded cassettes (if you are old enough) .

That is a problematic definition. Native applications running on mobile 
devices can technically do everything you mentioned in the "browser" 
definition. I thought the entire point of this option is to say that web 
browsers must implement X but native applications must implement Y.

I was expecting "browser" to be defined as an "application that enable 
users to render arbitrary web pages" whereas other entities are 
"special-purpose applications that enable users to carry out a limited 
set of operations on a limited set of (web) pages".

Gili