Re: CfC: Add a H.263 WebCodecs registration

We support addition of a H.263 WebCodecs registration entry, to be
published on w3.org.

Generally I feel registries shouldn't have a high burden of entry since
they are optional to implementers and can only increase adoption of the
core API.

- dale

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:35 AM Chris Needham <chris.needham@bbc.co.uk>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> This is a call for consensus to add a H.263 WebCodecs registration.
>
>
>
> The proposed registration comes from a contributor who is not a WG member,
> and relates to their own implementation of a WebCodecs polyfill and H.263
> implementation based on libavcodec in WASM. For context, see:
>
>
>
> * https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/issues/416
>
> * https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/pull/417
>
>
>
> If the WG agrees to add this registration, it presents a couple of options:
>
>
>
> 1. Add an entry to the registry and publish the registration document on
> w3.org (as per the existing registrations, such as AV1, H.264, etc). A WG
> member would take on the editor role for the registration while crediting
> the original author
>
>
>
> 2. Add an entry to the registry with a link to the registration document
> hosted elsewhere (not on w3.org), published by the original author
>
>
>
> If there is consensus to add the H.263 registration we will need to seek
> expertise from outside the WG to help review the registration before we
> publish. The pull request has a number of open questions that we’ll need to
> resolve. I'd like to check that we have consensus in the WG before we go
> ahead with that.
>
>
>
> The CfC will last for two weeks, ending on 7th March.. Please reply to
> this email and state one of the following:
>
>
>
> * I support addition of a H.263 WebCodecs registration entry, to be
> published on w3.org
>
>
>
> * I support addition of a H.263 WebCodecs registration entry, but not to
> publish on w3.org (please detail any concerns)
>
>
>
> * I object to addition of a H.263 WebCodecs registration entry (please
> detail any concerns)
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Chris (for the Media WG co-chairs)
>
>
>