RE: <device> proposal (for video conferencing, etc)

Isn't H.263 the most commonly used format for video conferencing/chat?
I have no idea about any patent issue with this codec.

Dzung Tran, 

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 09:47 AM
To: Andrei Popescu
Cc: Anne van Kesteren;; Ben Murdoch
Subject: Re: <device> proposal (for video conferencing, etc)

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> >> > If I understand the example correctly, the video element will show 
> >> > the output of the user's camera (i.e. act as an embedded camera 
> >> > viewport). To be able to implement video chat, we also need a way 
> >> > to see the remote party, so we need a way to send the Stream over 
> >> > to some server.  I think we should specify the mechanism for doing 
> >> > that (e.g. WebSockets::send(Stream stream)).
> >>
> >> I believe this is the plan yes, if the general proposal can be made 
> >> to work.
> >
> > Indeed. The problem is that this requires a chosen codec, and we don't 
> > have one. That's why I stopped where I did.
> Perhaps I am missing something, but this requirement isn't entirely 
> obvious to me :) Why do we need to agree on a codec any more than we 
> needed for the <video> tag?

We need to for <video> also.

However, in this case we need to even more, because otherwise there's no 
guarantee that a user with one browser could chat to a user with another 
browser, which makes the whole exercise pointless.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 19:11:24 UTC