Vorbis - Jul 2003 - AW: AW: AW: AW: Why the commotion about file extensions?

> Good point.  File extensions normally represent groups of related
> formats.  I don't propose differentiating everything (e.g. standalone
> FLAC from Ogg FLAC).  I do want as a minimum to tell apart these
> categories:
> 
> - Lossy audio: Vorbis, Speex.  But speech is useful to distinguish
>   from music, so making Speex separate is not a bad idea.
> - Lossless audio: FLAC, WAV (not that we can change the later ;).
> - Video: Theora, Tarkin.
Well, I think it is important not to make this extension stuff too
complicated. What would be the benefit of having different extensions for
lossy and non-lossy audio? Remember that if you think about individual files
you can always use a utility to see its properties (if you are an "above
average" user). IMHO the extension should provide just enough information
to
differentiate between the two main categories of audio and video in order to
be able to handle large amounts of files. The way the codec can be included
as an optional part may also be something that could be defined. But as is
always the case in software design it is important to know where to stop.
Otherwise you end up encoding the whole audio header in the filename.
> Right - but you are trying to imporve it for the user who has trouble
> remembering codecs, while harming me <wink>.  As a person who is
going
> to use Xiph (or other open) formats as much as possible, I don't care
> for many formats average users do, and I can easily remember all Xiph
> codecs ;-).
Wouldn't the scheme with the secondary optional codec extension work for you
as well? 

Hauke
--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

Hauke Duden wrote on 2003-07-17:
> > Good point.  File extensions normally represent groups of related
> > formats.  I don't propose differentiating everything (e.g.
standalone
> > FLAC from Ogg FLAC).  I do want as a minimum to tell apart these
> > categories:
> >
> > - Lossy audio: Vorbis, Speex.  But speech is useful to distinguish
> >   from music, so making Speex separate is not a bad idea.
> > - Lossless audio: FLAC, WAV (not that we can change the later ;).
> > - Video: Theora, Tarkin.
>
> Well, I think it is important not to make this extension stuff too
> complicated. What would be the benefit of having different extensions for
> lossy and non-lossy audio? Remember that if you think about individual
files
> you can always use a utility to see its properties (if you are an
"above
> average" user). IMHO the extension should provide just enough
information to
> differentiate between the two main categories of audio and video in order
to
> be able to handle large amounts of files. The way the codec can be included
> as an optional part may also be something that could be defined. But as is
> always the case in software design it is important to know where to stop.
> Otherwise you end up encoding the whole audio header in the filename.
>
Lossy vs. lossless is very important.  If I have both I can only keep
the lossless and always be able to recreate the lossy one but not vice
versa.  Consider the frequent scenario: you encode a bunch of .wav
files into `.ogg` files.  Then you listen and decide the quality is
not high enough, so you delete the `.ogg` files and reencode them with
higher quality.  Then you are satisfied and delete the `.wav` files to
save space.  Imagine how confusing it would be if the `.wav` files
would also have the same `.ogg` extension.  But FLAC is exactly like
WAV in this rescpect, it's only a bit smaller.
> > Right - but you are trying to imporve it for the user who has trouble
> > remembering codecs, while harming me <wink>.  As a person who is
going
> > to use Xiph (or other open) formats as much as possible, I don't
care
> > for many formats average users do, and I can easily remember all Xiph
> > codecs ;-).
>
> Wouldn't the scheme with the secondary optional codec extension work
for you
> as well?
>
Work - yes, as well - no ;-).  It's inconvenient and not supperted
well enough on windows as already mentioned in this thread.


-- 
Beni Cherniavsky <cben@tx.technion.ac.il>

If I don't hack on it, who will?  And if I don't GPL it, what am I?
And if it itches, why not now?  [With apologies to Hilel ;]
--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.