On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Stephan Wenger <stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Why MPEG-2? MPEG-2 video is MPEG-1 video plus interlace support. Do we
want interlace? More to the point, do we want to burden our decoders to
implement interlace support (which is non-trivial) when no sane encoder
would send interlace in a PC or mobile environment, even if the bitstream
format would allow for it?
Stephan
As I said in a previous message, the actual choice of encoding does not
really matter so much as the criteria.
The group is unable to come to agreement between the two choices. This is
because both choices are de facto encumbered even if there may be dispute
about the validity of the claims.
What I thought was a settled principle in the IETF is that the IETF does
not choose a encumbered technology as MTI if there is a viable unencumbered
alternative.
H.264 is obviously encumbered so that is excluded from consideration.
Anyone with deep pockets who attempts to use AV8 is likely to be sued and
suffer substantial expense regardless of the merits of the case. Ergo AV8
is effectively encumbered.
MPEG-1 was published in near complete form in 1991 (according to Wikipedia)
and is thus likely to be unencumbered and would meet the criteria.
If there is sufficient code support for MPEG-1 then it would seem to make
an excellent choice since it is definitively unencumbered.
My objective in making the proposal was to try to get the area ADs and WG
chairs to withdraw the silly proposal to have a vote so the matter can be
referred back to their committee and an appropriate choice made from the
eligible candidates. The same point could have been made by suggesting use
of animated GIF.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/