Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

[Mark Rejhon <[e-mail]>]

> ***** STAGE 1 *****
>
> "Implementors SHOULD include codecs (that are otherwise OPTIONAL) if
> they are already provided on the platform that the implementation runs
> on.  For example, a mobile phone implementation would likely have easy
> access to AMR codecs, and therefore SHOULD implement these codecs on
> this platform.  This also anticipate that available codecs are always
> evolving, including future codecs not yet developed at this time of
> writing."
> (not final wording, but you get the spirit)

Precedent: Mozilla's support of H.264 on platforms that have hardware
H.264 built in.
-- We remember how Mozilla is famously  against IPR-encumbered codecs,
but they've managed to find a way to support it while satisfying most
of the issues.  It is not a 100% solution, but lessons from the HTML5
<video> applies here, and I would need my very own brain checked if I
ignored such lessons.  We're lucky in that we have probably less
disagreement over required codecs (as imperfect as it is) than big
players had with HTML5 <video>.

Mark Rejhon