Me again... :) Despite all of the comments made in favor of the .OGG extension, I'm still going to have to side with the "different extension" camp. There are a number of reasons for this... First off... from where I'm sitting, it doesn't matter how much of a grey-area you get into, I can't think of a single scenario where you wouldn't be able to say that it was primarily one or the other. Let's consider Monty's slide show... this would probably take the Audio/Video extension... why? because BOTH aspects are seemingly critical data elements. OTOH, the song with the one frame of CD Cover Art would definately take the Audio extension. If someone HAD the "official" Ogg player, it could be set to open both of the above and handle them both appropriately, regardless of extension. As for the launcher... an undoubtedly neat idea, but it seems more like a novelty than something that would actually work well. (a la M$'s "Briefcase" that came with Win 3.1 and 95) The main problem I see here is implementation. How are we going to get this launcher onto the client machines? Are we going to "require" WinAmp to distribute the Ogg Launcher? is it going to come bundled with the WinAmp Plug-in? Are we going to say... "Well, if you want ogg to work, you need to download another program". On top of distribution problems, this would probably require the average user to RTFM... and how many of them want to do that? While the launcher would be a neat tool for a Windows "power user" the average flip-the-computer-on-and-play-music user isn't going to like it. The only other point that stands on it's own is the fact that OGG is the format for all of the specifications. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it easy on the user. We shouldn't expect every Audio player to handle (or intentionally ignore) video, and we shouldn't expect every video player to know what to do when it encounters a "sound only" type of file. We also need to keep in mind that, if this spec catches on, we'll probably get some third-party developers working on stuff independently of this group. I would have NO problem with a compromise (say .ogg.vorbis or .ogg-vorbis or .vogg or .v-ogg or whatever) but we do need to cater to Windows here. Linux is a good enough operating system that it can adapt to anything that works in Windows. Let's make sure that our weakest OS link is strong enough that it doesn't kill us. (Especially because it happens to be the most popular one). Besides, I still haven't seen a functionality argument in favor of .OGG... they've all, basically, been aesthetic or philosophical. ...then again, I could be wrong. :) ~doc --- >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.
Well, I first also preferred the different extensions, but Monty did throw in the launcher. The launcher could offer quite a lot of added functionnality. Say, your favorite video player isn't able to let you select an audio stream out of multiple streams, the launcher could charge another player. Eventually he could also take another action based on metadata, say display a copyright message (but I don't know if I like the copyright idea ...). Either way, the launcher offers the most flexibility. I suggest using the launcher and an officially .OGG extension and eventually secondary, unwanted but tolerated .vogg, etc (or whatever extension is to be chosen). I think that most users won't need the launcher as they will mostly use only audio, and the occasionnally video could also be opened directly out of the video player. One should never estimate how "dumb" a user can act (I know it, I did already teach *very* beginner computer courses) so probably the different extensions is the most foolproof one. Alain Doc Holiday wrote:> > Me again... :) > Despite all of the comments made in favor of the .OGG extension, I'm still going to have to side with the "different extension" camp. There are a number of reasons for this... > > First off... from where I'm sitting, it doesn't matter how much of a grey-area you get into, I can't think of a single scenario where you wouldn't be able to say that it was primarily one or the other. Let's consider Monty's slide show... this would probably take the Audio/Video extension... why? because BOTH aspects are seemingly critical data elements. OTOH, the song with the one frame of CD Cover Art would definately take the Audio extension. If someone HAD the "official" Ogg player, it could be set to open both of the above and handle them both appropriately, regardless of extension. > > As for the launcher... an undoubtedly neat idea, but it seems more like a novelty than something that would actually work well. (a la M$'s "Briefcase" that came with Win 3.1 and 95) The main problem I see here is implementation. How are we going to get this launcher onto the client machines? Are we going to "require" WinAmp to distribute the Ogg Launcher? is it going to come bundled with the WinAmp Plug-in? Are we going to say... "Well, if you want ogg to work, you need to download another program". On top of distribution problems, this would probably require the average user to RTFM... and how many of them want to do that? While the launcher would be a neat tool for a Windows "power user" the average flip-the-computer-on-and-play-music user isn't going to like it. > > The only other point that stands on it's own is the fact that OGG is the format for all of the specifications. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it easy on the user. We shouldn't expect every Audio player to handle (or intentionally ignore) video, and we shouldn't expect every video player to know what to do when it encounters a "sound only" type of file. We also need to keep in mind that, if this spec catches on, we'll probably get some third-party developers working on stuff independently of this group. > > I would have NO problem with a compromise (say .ogg.vorbis or .ogg-vorbis or .vogg or .v-ogg or whatever) but we do need to cater to Windows here. Linux is a good enough operating system that it can adapt to anything that works in Windows. Let's make sure that our weakest OS link is strong enough that it doesn't kill us. (Especially because it happens to be the most popular one). Besides, I still haven't seen a functionality argument in favor of .OGG... they've all, basically, been aesthetic or philosophical. > > ...then again, I could be wrong. :) > > ~doc > > --- >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.-- Projet BB: http://www.spider.lu/homepages/bb/ --- >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.
I would clarify one thing... I do think that the launcher would be cool (I would probably use it myself), but I just don't think the solution to our mini-problem ought to include more downloads... unless the user chooses to deal with it that way. :) (I would definately be willing to help write the Win9x version of the launcher) ~doc ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Alain Bertrand <alain.bertrand@crpgl.lu> Reply-To: vorbis@xiph.org Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:08:13 +0100 Well, I first also preferred the different extensions, but Monty did throw in the launcher. The launcher could offer quite a lot of added functionnality. Say, your favorite video player isn't able to let you select an audio stream out of multiple streams, the launcher could charge another player. Eventually he could also take another action based on metadata, say display a copyright message (but I don't know if I like the copyright idea ...). Either way, the launcher offers the most flexibility. I suggest using the launcher and an officially .OGG extension and eventually secondary, unwanted but tolerated .vogg, etc (or whatever extension is to be chosen). I think that most users won't need the launcher as they will mostly use only audio, and the occasionnally video could also be opened directly out of the video player. One should never estimate how "dumb" a user can act (I know it, I did already teach *very* beginner computer courses) so probably the different extensions is the most foolproof one. Alain --- >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.
> As for the launcher... an undoubtedly neat idea, but it seems more like a novelty than something that would actually work well. (a la M$'s "Briefcase" that came with Win 3.1 and 95) The main problem I see here is implementation. How are we going to get this launcher onto the client machines? Are we going to "require" WinAmp to distribute the Ogg Launcher? is it going to come bundled with the WinAmp Plug-in? Are we going to say... "Well, if you want ogg to work, you need to download another program". On top of distribution problems, this would probably require the average user to RTFM... and how many of them want to do that? While the launcher would be a neat tool for a Windows "power user" the average flip-the-computer-on-and-play-music user isn't going to like it.Come on... the launcher is an addon. And it's only needed IF you want your video files going here, your audio files going there, and your animations going way over there. For typical users, .ogg will bring up their favorite media player and all will be well.> The only other point that stands on it's own is the fact that OGG is the format for all of the specifications. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it easy on the user. We shouldn't expect every Audio player to handle (or intentionally ignore) video, and we shouldn't expect every video player to know what to do when it encounters a "sound only" type of file. We also need to keep in mind that, if this spec catches on, we'll probably get some third-party developers working on stuff independently of this group.Ok, name me one media plyaer that supports video that doens't also do pretty well with audio by itself. Go on. Windows Media Player and RealPlayer both do this quite seemlessly. So does Quicktime. As for the audio only players, why are they audio only? Because they can't play proprietary video. Well if they could they probably would don't you think? Especially if the decoding was done for them in libtarkin (or whatever it gets called). This argument is silly. A typical user will click on an ogg file and it will just work. Case closed. How will hte player know if it's audio or video? easy. THe plugin can tell it. This is not a problem. We actually have quite a good relationship with most of the creators of these players, and I know that Sonique at least will be doing video as soon as they can. I can't speak for Rob, but I'm sure Freeamp would too. Xmms already does for MPEG i think, so the argumnet about audio players vs. video plyaers doesn't have any weight. For power users, who want really customized systems, well, they can use a launcher, hack it to work, or whatever. For the average joe, clicking on a file and knowing it will play is a big plus. Windows usually hides the extensions anyway, so differentiating based on them is just silly. jack. --- >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.