- From: Timothy B. Terriberry <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:29:22 -0700
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Jim Barnett wrote: > otherwise.) On the other hand, unless we specify MTI container formats, > this approach doesn’t provide much interoperability. If we want to > avoid another round of the MTI wars, maybe we could get away with > saying that the UA must support a container format that can > merge/synchronize a single video and single audio stream. This would MTI was viewed as important for the <video> tag so that websites could encode files in a single format and serve it to all clients, and for WebRTC so that two different clients could successfully communicate. The case is somewhat weaker for recording, since (in the use-cases as I understand them), the client is producing a stream for uploading to a server, which will consume it once. I think the most important requirement is that a browser produce a format that it can, itself, play back.
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 01:29:49 UTC