Martin Leese
2007-Sep-24 14:10 UTC
[ogg-dev] Re: [Vorbis-dev] Peer review draft for the new media types/file extensions
" Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves " <justivo@gmail.com> wrote:> On 9/24/07, Ian Malone <ibmalone@gmail.com> wrote: > > The point I > > wanted to bring up was the MAY ignore unrecognised stream > > types, which I understood to be a future proofing mechanism. > > Oh. > > There is a similar notice in the wiki, which I did not integrate in > the registration proposal. > > "apps that identify a logical bitstream which they cannot decode > SHOULD ignore it but MAY still decode the ones they can" > > This is only in "application/ogg", though. Should I integrate it in > the registration proposal? And if yes, only in application, or also > in video and audio?Xiph is working on a number of additional streams for the Ogg container, including Ogg Skeleton. If you want to include Ogg Skeleton in Ogg then apps had better ignore it if they can't decode it. Otherwise, including Ogg Skeleton will break apps which comply. As I understand it, the situation now is that including Ogg Skeleton breaks apps. That has to be changed if you want to move forward into things like XMLEmbedding. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese@stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
2007-Sep-24 14:33 UTC
[ogg-dev] Re: [Vorbis-dev] Peer review draft for the new media types/file extensions
Martin, On 9/24/07, Martin Leese <martin.leese@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:> As I understand it, the situation now is that > including Ogg Skeleton breaks apps. That > has to be changed if you want to move > forward into things like XMLEmbedding.You are right. I will correct the Encoding Considerations section to take into account this issue. -Ivo