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

> > >
> > > 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?
> When we do go through a server, it would certainly be better if the
> server
> didn't have to transcode every frame. That's a lot of load on the
> server.
> But I think ideally we'd eventually come up with a client-to-client
> protocol, and so the server couldn't transcode even if it wanted to.

Do you consider the client-to-client protocol to be in scope at the moment, or is that far-future work?


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 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. limited will not be liable for any loss, damage or consequence caused directly or indirectly by this email.

Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 21:33:04 UTC