Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)
From: tim panton <[email-masked]>
To: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 19:05:28 +0000
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>

On 5 Nov 2014, at 16:58, cowwoc <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 05/11/2014 10:47 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> 2014-11-04 18:01 GMT+01:00 tim panton <[email-masked]>:
>>> All implementations of the rtcweb specification must implement at least one of  VP8 or H.264,
>>> implementations that also implement the w3c’s webRTC javascript  API must implement  both VP8 and H264
>> +1
>> 
>> This is obviously the only way-to-go and the only reasonable and
>> feasible decision.
>> 
>> BTW and given that this is a W3C business, I would replace:
>>   "implementations that also implement the w3c’s webRTC javascript  API"
>> with:
>>   "browsers"
> 
> Why should we treat non-browsers any differently?

My logic for this is that non-browsers are typically statically programmed, to do a single task well,
so don’t have the same over-riding need for interop with everything else.

A browser has no pre-defined use case and so has to be as flexible as possible to accommodate anything.

> 
> Gili
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb