Re: [rtcweb] Clarification Requested: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:25 AM, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> (This is a different clarification: thanks for clarifying my first
> question.)
>
>    I notice Adam Roach has provided an answer on-list which is both
> reasonable and easy to read.
>
>    When I tried a reply from my mail-reader, I became confused by the
> numbering; and I eventually gave up because I wasn't sure how automatic
> software might interpret my answers.
>
>
We're not planning on using automated software to interpret your answers,
so as long as you answer the questions in a way that unambiguously
associates
the answer to the question, you should be okay.

If you, or others, would like to emulate Adam's format, you are welcome to
do so.

Ted


>    (Ted's original had confusing numbers following each question, e.g.:
> ]
> ]    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> ]    1.
> ]
> ]       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> ]       2.
> ]
> ]       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> ]       them:
> ]       4.
>
>    Adam left out the "2" following each "in favor" question, and attached
> the question-number, e.g. "4" to the next question.
>
>    Should we be trying to emulate Adam's format -- or is there some
> automated way to answer the questions in an unambiguous manner?
>
> --
> John Leslie <[e-mail]>
>