ogg dev - Jun 2010 - Fwd: Skeleton 4.0 draft, help with Dirac fields please!

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Monty Montgomery <monty at xiph.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry
> <tterribe at email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> Chris Pearce wrote:
>>> ? Hi Guys & Gals,
>>>
>>> I need you guys to decide whether we want to include extra
granulepos
>>> fields to Skeleton 4. Given the underwhelming discussion regarding
this,
>>> I'm guessing the need and/or desire for these fields isn't
really there.
>>
>> I haven't commented mostly because I don't know what
Monty's plans for a
>> "grand unified granpos scheme" are. All of this is mostly in
his head
>> right now, and he needs to be the one to provide feedback.
>
> I've been trying to write it down such that it is clear or not if I
> understand everything I need to (especially in the case of dirac). ?Up
> to this point I haven't, thus my lack of delivery.
I don't think getting Ogg in shape for Dirac delivery is that much of
a priority right now to have Firefox blocked on it. I think Chris
Pearce should go ahead without these fields. There is always time for
another skeleton revision to integrate this with. I would rather do
this properly than rush it now.

Cheers,
Silvia.

On 1/06/2010 3:12 p.m., Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> I don't think getting Ogg in shape for Dirac delivery is that much of
> a priority right now to have Firefox blocked on it. I think Chris
> Pearce should go ahead without these fields. There is always time for
> another skeleton revision to integrate this with. I would rather do
> this properly than rush it now.
Ok, thanks Silvia. I'll keep working on OggIndex/Skeleton 4.0 without 
the new granulepos fields, and if they're ready in time I'll include 
them, otherwise they can wait until Skeleton 4.x.

Chris P.

On 31 May 2010 20:51, Chris Pearce <chris at pearce.org.nz> wrote:
> Ok, thanks Silvia. I'll keep working on OggIndex/Skeleton 4.0 without
> the new granulepos fields, and if they're ready in time I'll
include
> them, otherwise they can wait until Skeleton 4.x.
I was waiting for Monty so summarize his ideas too, but from the irc
discussion, it sounds like the extra field description is (a) more
complicated than I thought when I brought it up in January and (b) the
current Dirac mapping has fixed widths for everything, so it's not
necessary to specify it in skeleton for Dirac to work. So, I second
going ahead without adding anything special to support reordered
codecs.

 -r