[ogg-dev] oggpcm2 sample rate

Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au
Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:32:26 -0000

Hi,

I'd support the view of freezing the main header, since it helps in actually
getting some implementation happening and it seems fully agreed on by everyone.
FAIK, Zen has already started an implementation and if you, Conrad, implement,
too, there is enough code to do validation.

What do you expect now to make it an "officially frozen"
specification? Publish it on the main website at xiph.org?

What can be done at this point IMHO is to put a note onto the wiki page that the
first header is frozen and that implementations are in progress. And make a
statement on the remaining issues and discussions thereof on the discussion
page.

I support OggPCM2 as the only PCM format in Ogg, since the majority of
discussion, contributions, and now implementations from the community came into
this format and we cannot use the same identifier ("PCM") on two
different specifications. Also, I haven't seen an implementation of OggPCM
yet.

Cheers,
Silvia.

-----Original Message-----
From:	ogg-dev-bounces@xiph.org on behalf of Jean-Marc Valin
Sent:	Fri 2/10/2006 11:41 AM
To:	Conrad Parker
Cc:	ogg-dev@xiph.org
Subject:	Re: [ogg-dev] oggpcm2 sample rate
Hi,

I also think that outside of the extra headers, OggPCM2 is ready to be
implemented. I suggest we make the main part (no extra headers)
"officiel" now. We could always add stuff later on by bumping the
minor
number if really needed. If we go this way, I also suggest we rename it
to OggPCM just to make sure it doesn't get confusing with the original
OggPCM.

Does anyone see a good reason *not* to go forward with that?

	Jean-Marc

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:00 +1100, Conrad Parker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> although the OggPCM2 draft states that it is a work in progress, it also
> states that the main points of contention are in optional headers.
>
> I'd like to add OggPCM2 seeking support to liboggz, which will also
> display correct timestamps in oggzdump and allow oggz-validate to run
> on OggPCM2 files for testing, while implementations are being
> developed.
>
> In order to do this, only the Main Header Packet needs to be parsed;
> hence without requesting that the whole format be frozen, it would be
> useful to freeze a version of the main header format. (Without
> releasing the whole format, it will be useful to freeze even just the
> position of the "Sampling rate" field).
>
> Can we state that? It'd be the first step to start testing
implementations
> of the channel mappings and conversion stuff ...
>
> Conrad.
> _______________________________________________
> ogg-dev mailing list
> ogg-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/ogg-dev
>
_______________________________________________
ogg-dev mailing list
ogg-dev@xiph.org