ogg dev - Feb 2008 - OggPCM: support for little-endianness only?

On 2007-12-30, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> In any format that is to be used on both, it is always better to pick 
> one and stick with it.
Then recommend one single format. Nobody *has* to support all of the 
features present, yet it makes sense to *allow* common variances. Most 
of all, because:
> Unless you can guarantee that you're writing streams that are only 
> going to be passed within a single architecture, allowing both formats 
> is always worse.
...some people *are* able to guarantee that. Why hinder them?
-- 
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

On 14/02/2008, Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 2007-12-30, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
>
> > In any format that is to be used on both, it is always better to pick
> > one and stick with it.
>
> Then recommend one single format. Nobody *has* to support all of the
> features present, yet it makes sense to *allow* common variances. Most
> of all, because:
>
> > Unless you can guarantee that you're writing streams that are only
> > going to be passed within a single architecture, allowing both formats
> > is always worse.
>
> ...some people *are* able to guarantee that. Why hinder them?
I tend to disagree with your sentiment. The specification of any
format or protocol
has mandatory and recommended sections (not "features"); MUST and
SHOULD respectively for IETF and W3C stuff. The implication is that
any implementation which does not implement all of the MUST parts is
not compliant with the specification.

Details which are necessary for interoperability are necessarily
mandatory. I reckon that agreement on byteorder is pretty fundamental
for any data format.

Actually, this post is just an excuse to point to:
http://lists.slug.org.au/archives/slug-chat/2001/July/msg00054.html

cheers,

Conrad.

> Details which are necessary for interoperability are necessarily
> mandatory. I reckon that agreement on byteorder is pretty fundamental
> for any data format.
> 
> Actually, this post is just an excuse to point to:
> http://lists.slug.org.au/archives/slug-chat/2001/July/msg00054.html
You mean you suggest OggPCM should be ICCCM-compliant? I think that's a
great idea! We should start by defining a "selection header", which
could be used for doing OggPCM copy/paste within X. Any suggestions on
how to handle interactions between OggPCM and window managers?

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

On 2008-02-14, Conrad Parker wrote:
> I tend to disagree with your sentiment. The specification of any 
> format or protocol has mandatory and recommended sections (not 
> "features"); MUST and SHOULD respectively for IETF and W3C stuff.
Then why not make the common endianness MUST and the rest of it SHOULD? 
That was my sentiment, after all...
-- 
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2