From: daniel h. <de...@to...> - 2004-11-02 09:29:14
|
Michael Van Donselaar a =E9crit : >On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:58:02 -0600, "Michael Van Donselaar" ><mi...@va...> wrote: > ><snip> > > =20 > >>Am I misunderstanding this, or ought ilbc not be allowed implicitly? >> =20 >> > >OK, so I should have looked at the source before posting. > >It looks like we need an ifdef to add iLBC to the capabilities if it is = is >compiled in. > >My question to everyone is: Should iLBC replace speex as the default pr= eferred >codec when available, or leave speex the default preferred codec, and ju= st add >iLBC to the allowed list? > > =20 > I vote for iLBC replacing speex as default preferred --=20 Daniel |