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

> >
> > 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.
>

Won't that go via a server, which could potentially transcode?

Or are we talking about doing Browser-to-Browser Websocket communications (which would be great, but I'm fairly sure isn't currently supported)

Nick

IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or disclose its contents to any other party. This email represents the views of the individual sender, which do not necessarily reflect those of Education.au except where the sender expressly states otherwise. It is your responsibility to scan this email and any files transmitted with it for viruses or any other defects. education.au limited will not be liable for any loss, damage or consequence caused directly or indirectly by this email.

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 21:32:17 UTC