Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 11/11/2014 3:13 PM, tim panton wrote:
> My personal preference would be to replace ‘both’ with ‘either’ in the 
> device rule, but I understand
> the thinking behind the ‘both’ phrasing.

Same here. I would also prefer replacing "both" with "either" in the 
device rule. What is the practical benefit of forcing both codecs on 
non-browsers? If you proceed this way, won't most applications accept 
being declared non-compliant instead of investing the extra work/cost of 
implementing both codecs?

Implementing both codecs only makes sense when you need interoperability 
between applications written by different authors. The same argument 
does not apply when both endpoints are written by the same author. 
Furthermore, I would argue that when separate authors want their 
applications to inter-operate they will have the necessary incentive to 
make that happen, with or without the specification dictating how it 
should be done.

Another spin on this would be to say: all libraries/platforms 
(abstraction layers used to write applications) must implement both 
codecs, whereas applications (end-users) can implement as many codecs as 
they'd like.

Gili