Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)

Silvia Pfeiffer <> Sat, 16 March 2013 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F7321F8605 for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yuLfotEfyRkE for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7CE21F859D for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fs12so4942289lab.11 for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=aVda3TqvGYh2hqojT9TQ1jmWhwIC4R5vPIyixZUusII=; b=kyQ1rMxT6JllwktJU18e+llsBwrwnxk9N88d9ZKtG0YNdKAEL9AHPgBiYjxBuqJGum /915n3nchyjtVHVu7DRAyXg9BniEKZlwtNguVqyhq0Lkjw2Rk5Djc5Y3aBfNpdldCMrg SsHiu+IqB3FqPtCC3c+Jv+zStxnLw5/mNYXuQdgfuLathc6H4B/2csxXfVVeFG809sM7 iVVlwlGPFWRVhkXeVXBU6k4RsYjPElpu6GqlhBObeKN18Ds9YiZLV3HxwtrFtnpvJxkJ 4SDt26Kw2PFIbsLWUGyEYMgsV8HCzQGv0LObZC2VrCeIrmhp7YlVyChXEroGDT7/ORvX V/lA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q5mr4445398lby.25.1363475004731; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <BLU402-EAS287A23CE95CE9F7C2F324193EE0@phx.gbl> <>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:03:03 +1100
Message-ID: <>
To: Leon Geyser <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04016c2d51428d04d812c3e3"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)
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: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:03:27 -0000

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Leon Geyser <> wrote:

> [BA] No. It just removes the stick that each side can use to beat the
>> other side.  The need for interoperability still remains, and most likely
>> will either be addressed by the marketplace choosing one over the other
>> decisively
> I don't see how that would address it unless the browser vendors really
> care about interoperability. My browser implements the WebRTC without a MTI
> video codec spec and implements H.264; why whould I care about the others?
> I mean the <video> tag has been out there for ages and the marketplace did
> not dictate that H.264 or VP8 should be implemented. It still is split and
> probably will stay like that.

It's a terrible situation for video publishers having to provide two
versions of video files, or support two players (one in HTML5 and one in
Flash). It's not a model that we should follow. In fact, there is a
discussion about making VP8 the baseline codec for <video>, too. However,
everyone is waiting for more details on the MPEG-LA deal and on an update
of the VP8/VP9 license in which Google would hand on their license. It will
be a better situation for discussions then. I have a hunch on what this all
will mean, but there's no need speculating when we can just wait a few