Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Stephan Wenger <> Thu, 15 December 2011 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28CD621F8888 for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:00:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.699, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wTN2XKhwWbnO for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:00:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299CD21F8876 for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 6979-1743317 for multiple; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:00:47 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:00:18 -0800
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP ( was found in the spamhaus database.
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:00:57 -0000


On 12.15.2011 11:52 , "Ted Hardie" <> wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry
><> wrote:
>> What actually matters is, are people willing to ship it?
>This is the critical point.  The working group agreed to specify a
>mandatory-to-implement here because we want to avoid interoperability
>failures.   Defining one that folks won't ship does not achieve that
>goal.  It's that simple.

For once, I completely agree with Tim and Ted (though I also concur that
Rob's language is an improvement over what was in the -01 draft, for
reasons stated by others and myself).  Scary :-)

So why not write it down Ted's reasoning?  Putting a bit of my own spin to
it, perhaps something like:

"It is desirable to have a mandatory codec that is supported in the
majority of newly deployed browsers.  Accordingly, the WG will wait for an
indication of consensus among the major browser vendors for a mandatory
codec of their choice.  If no such indication is received in a
sufficiently timely manner, then the WG will have to leave the mandatory
video codec unspecified."

Yes, from my viewpoint, major browser vendors include Microsoft and Apple
(both companies with business models that appear, today, to be compatible
with royalty-bearing codec technologies).  It's today's market reality.
And no matter how you spin it, it's going to continue to be the market
reality for a number of years.

No, from all I know it's not overly likely that there will be such a
consensus anytime soon.  But maybe, just maybe, the horse learns to sing.
The MPEG effort could offer an opening for such a "miracle".  I have heard
rumors that there may be other avenues as well--so have others in this WG,
I'm sure.  If the horse doesn't learn to sing--well, we would be no worse
off than HTML5 is today.


>Ted Hardie
>rtcweb mailing list