Comments on Cisco, Mozilla, and H.264
Interestingly, no mention of VP9.<p>Although the current political battle is over VP8 vs H.264 (Baseline) for Mandatory To Implement status in WebRTC, that's only the fallback position to avoid interoperability failure. Any random codec supported by the endpoints could be used.<p>For example, since you're forced to buy patent rights for all of H.264 as a bundle it seems that anyone who uses H.264 for WebRTC would use H.264 High Profile when both ends have it. (Currently Cisco is only offering Baseline, but are happy to accept code for the higher levels).<p>But just as easily, two copies of a future Google Chrome could use VP9, or two copies of even further future Firefox could use Daala, or IE13 could use H.265.<p>But VP9 gets no mention at all in Xiphmont's post. Have Firefox decided officially to skip VP9? In WebRTC it would seem an obvious stepping stone towards the Daala future, even if it's usage for standard HTML5 video is less likely to be useful.