Re: [rtcweb] Usecases for innovation.

[Tim Panton <[e-mail]>]

On 9 Nov 2011, at 01:05, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> [BA]  I'm trying to understand the "generic" issues presented by these cases.  
>  
> For #1, is the generic issue the ability to add support for codecs not supported natively (e.g. ability to add and use a codec added by a plugin, for example)?  
>  
> For #2, is the generic issue the ability to add support for new types of devices without standardized APIs, or is the issue being able to represent the input/output of a non-standard device in terms of a media stream? 

Well, in some sense kinect is just a lossy video encoder. So you could argue that they are the same problem.
Both cases point out the fact that tying codecs/networking/negotiation into one object and
only presenting a (somewhat opaque) blob of SDP to represent them limits what we can do 
at the javascript end. 
That may be a limitation we can live with, but at least we need to acknowledge that it is a limitation.

>  
>  
>  
>  
> Tim said:
>  
> " 1) H264 implementation in Javascript http://yfrog.com/nmng0z 
> 2) Kinect as an input device for a virtual receptionist in a real reception area
>  	(Voxeo's as it happens).
>  
> Neither of these are production ready - or indeed necessarily a good idea,
> but the fact that neither (minor) innovation fits at all into our brand new framework
> should give us pause for thought. (but given the pell-mell dash to be compatible
> with last century's deskphones I don't imagine it will)."
>