I've tried to solicit discussion on this point in the past, but now I'd like the press the issue for a bit. I'd like to remove the less well developed mapping header (option 1) from the OggPCM draft, and make my/our (with Martin Leese) suggestion (option 2) the definitive one. If anybody objects, let's discuss it on-list. If not, I think it wouldn't be too bad of an idea if I made the proper adjustment to the OggPCM spec in, say, 30 days time. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy at iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Sampo Syreeni wrote:> I've tried to solicit discussion on this point in the past, but now I'd > like the press the issue for a bit. I'd like to remove the less well > developed mapping header (option 1) from the OggPCM draft, and make > my/our (with Martin Leese) suggestion (option 2) the definitive one.Do you have a URL? Erik -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo ----------------------------------------------------------------- With 22,100,000 legitimate businesses in the US alone, allowing each to send only one UCE per *year* gets every mailbox 60,547 emails per day. There will either be email without UCE or there will be no email.
2008/9/8 Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+la at mega-nerd.com>:> Sampo Syreeni wrote: > >> I've tried to solicit discussion on this point in the past, but now I'd >> like the press the issue for a bit. I'd like to remove the less well >> developed mapping header (option 1) from the OggPCM draft, and make >> my/our (with Martin Leese) suggestion (option 2) the definitive one. > > Do you have a URL? >I guess it's the draft at the wiki: http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggPCM_Draft2#Channel_Mapping.2C_proposed_option_2 -- imalone