ogg dev - Jan 2007 - Re: [Vorbis-dev] Proposal: An extension to rules all others

On 1/15/07, Ian Malone <ibmalone@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent on preventing uptake
> of other formats.
I've been thinking about that.  Considering Apple is an American
company, can't they be liable for an anti-trust case against other
formats?  They do have an interest in keeping little competition in
AAC'a territory.
> First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming out shortly,
> does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's predecessors?
I've not heard of anything in that regard.  Actually, I'm not sure it
would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new version of DOS.
Although, I did hear something about a new completely different
Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that would be affected by
8.3 limits.
> Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end users are less
> computer literate (yes more people can type, but a decreasing
> proportion understand how their computers work, maybe I should say
> the quality of computer literacy is decreasing).  They don't care
> about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods), what they do
> care about is branding.  I immediately thought about being flippant
> and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only and .avi for
> Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem.  But, that would
> make Xiph the bad guys...
>
> However there's something to this idea; it recognises the recognition
> that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to load someone's iPod
> for them I suspect there may be quite a few people using iPods
> thinking that mp3 is aac).  So what about:
> .music (Vorbis)
> .video (Theora + audio)
> .voice (Speex)
> .music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
> .video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
>
> I really am serious.  They're unused (AFAIK), they tell you about
> content.  If people start trying to call other things .music (or
> similar), then they'll run into any extension problems, and if
> MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't working
> complaining they are more likely to try and do something about that
> than they have been to act on Ogg.
>
> The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding, though I think this
> is more important for content publishers than consumers.
Yes!  Your extensions list is actually more sensible than mine.  This
is aggresive marketing!  And it can work.  As long as software
developers are warned to support both new and legacy extensions, and
content developers encouraged to use the new extensions, it might just
work.  Pretty much, it's still a dual extension proposal, but with
foresight of promotion and locking illiterate users to think .music is
actually music, and .video is actually video, and nothing else.

And I'm sure audiophiles will be happy with .music-perfect.

What do others think?  Monty, Josh, Ralph, Jean-Marc, Mike?  Do any of
you agree on this proposal?

The intent to get rid of extension flamewars due to exclusive use
of.ogg is still here.  Other priorities at work here are promotion and
clear confusion from the part of users.

-Ivo

P.S: There's still the disposition-type proposal to discuss.  Should
we schedule a Monthly Meeting to discuss this and the above?

On 16/01/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves <justivo@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 1/15/07, Ian Malone <ibmalone@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming out shortly,
> > does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's
predecessors?
>
> I've not heard of anything in that regard.  Actually, I'm not sure
it
> would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new version of DOS.
> Although, I did hear something about a new completely different
> Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that would be affected by
> 8.3 limits.
>
That's me being very flippant, I'm talking about Vista.  Lots of talk
about rewritten codebases, NTFS and this new database thing
replacing FAT, but if it still uses .ext style extensions to tell it and
the user what's in a file then there's an important legacy aspect still
stuck there[1].  Twelve years after Windows 95.  Anyhow, best not
start ranting off on a tangent.

[1] Yes things have been improved, but how long has the Mac had
 (and used) resource forks?
-- 
imalone

Hopefully this doesn't spawn another flame war...

These extensions seem pretty presumptuous.
>.music (Vorbis)
>.video (Theora + audio)
>.voice (Speex)
>.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
>.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
What happens when a new audio/video codec is added to the mix? A new extension?

What would be the extension for a chained file that contains audio-only and
A/V segments? (My _favorite_ corner case in the ogg format. :| )


What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo model?
.oga (Vorbis, Speex)
.ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)

Why do we need a new extension for FLAC?

I understand the desire to use seperate extensions to differentiate audio-only
from video files. Why do we need furthur differentiation based on codec?
Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if they really need to
determine which codec it contains. If people really want to use different
applications for each codec then let them deal with the headaches of making
that happen. Don't burden the masses with a ton of extensions just to
appease
a select few.

Proliferation of a bunch of new extensions will only confuse users in my
opinion.

Aaron

On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:23:21PM +0000, Ivo Emanuel Gon??alves
wrote:
> On 1/15/07, Ian Malone <ibmalone@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent on preventing uptake
> >of other formats.
> 
> I've been thinking about that.  Considering Apple is an American
> company, can't they be liable for an anti-trust case against other
> formats?  They do have an interest in keeping little competition in
> AAC'a territory.
> 
> >First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming out shortly,
> >does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's predecessors?
> 
> I've not heard of anything in that regard.  Actually, I'm not sure
it
> would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new version of DOS.
> Although, I did hear something about a new completely different
> Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that would be affected by
> 8.3 limits.
> 
> >Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end users are less
> >computer literate (yes more people can type, but a decreasing
> >proportion understand how their computers work, maybe I should say
> >the quality of computer literacy is decreasing).  They don't care
> >about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods), what they do
> >care about is branding.  I immediately thought about being flippant
> >and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only and .avi for
> >Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem.  But, that would
> >make Xiph the bad guys...
> >
> >However there's something to this idea; it recognises the
recognition
> >that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to load someone's
iPod
> >for them I suspect there may be quite a few people using iPods
> >thinking that mp3 is aac).  So what about:
> >.music (Vorbis)
> >.video (Theora + audio)
> >.voice (Speex)
> >.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
> >.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
> >
> >I really am serious.  They're unused (AFAIK), they tell you about
> >content.  If people start trying to call other things .music (or
> >similar), then they'll run into any extension problems, and if
> >MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't working
> >complaining they are more likely to try and do something about that
> >than they have been to act on Ogg.
> >
> >The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding, though I think this
> >is more important for content publishers than consumers.
> 
> Yes!  Your extensions list is actually more sensible than mine.  This
> is aggresive marketing!  And it can work.  As long as software
> developers are warned to support both new and legacy extensions, and
> content developers encouraged to use the new extensions, it might just
> work.  Pretty much, it's still a dual extension proposal, but with
> foresight of promotion and locking illiterate users to think .music is
> actually music, and .video is actually video, and nothing else.
> 
> And I'm sure audiophiles will be happy with .music-perfect.
> 
> What do others think?  Monty, Josh, Ralph, Jean-Marc, Mike?  Do any of
> you agree on this proposal?
> 
> The intent to get rid of extension flamewars due to exclusive use
> of.ogg is still here.  Other priorities at work here are promotion and
> clear confusion from the part of users.
> 
> -Ivo
> 
> P.S: There's still the disposition-type proposal to discuss.  Should
> we schedule a Monthly Meeting to discuss this and the above?
> _______________________________________________
> xiph-rtp mailing list
> xiph-rtp@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp

I agree with Aaron.

Also consider that the extensions and an associated mimetype will need
to be ratified by the IETF to become "standard". They would never
agree to these extensions since they are too broad.

And I like ".oga" and ".ogv" - they are simple for the user
to
understand which application to try and throw at it.

Silvia.

On 1/17/07, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@real.com>
wrote:
> Hopefully this doesn't spawn another flame war...
>
> These extensions seem pretty presumptuous.
> >.music (Vorbis)
> >.video (Theora + audio)
> >.voice (Speex)
> >.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
> >.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
>
> What happens when a new audio/video codec is added to the mix? A new
extension?
>
> What would be the extension for a chained file that contains audio-only and
> A/V segments? (My _favorite_ corner case in the ogg format. :| )
>
>
> What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo model?
> .oga (Vorbis, Speex)
> .ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)
>
> Why do we need a new extension for FLAC?
>
> I understand the desire to use seperate extensions to differentiate
audio-only
> from video files. Why do we need furthur differentiation based on codec?
> Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if they really need
to
> determine which codec it contains. If people really want to use different
> applications for each codec then let them deal with the headaches of making
> that happen. Don't burden the masses with a ton of extensions just to
appease
> a select few.
>
> Proliferation of a bunch of new extensions will only confuse users in my
> opinion.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:23:21PM +0000, Ivo Emanuel Gon??alves wrote:
> > On 1/15/07, Ian Malone <ibmalone@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent on preventing
uptake
> > >of other formats.
> >
> > I've been thinking about that.  Considering Apple is an American
> > company, can't they be liable for an anti-trust case against other
> > formats?  They do have an interest in keeping little competition in
> > AAC'a territory.
> >
> > >First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming out
shortly,
> > >does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's
predecessors?
> >
> > I've not heard of anything in that regard.  Actually, I'm not
sure it
> > would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new version of DOS.
> > Although, I did hear something about a new completely different
> > Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that would be affected by
> > 8.3 limits.
> >
> > >Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end users are
less
> > >computer literate (yes more people can type, but a decreasing
> > >proportion understand how their computers work, maybe I should say
> > >the quality of computer literacy is decreasing).  They don't
care
> > >about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods), what they
do
> > >care about is branding.  I immediately thought about being
flippant
> > >and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only and .avi for
> > >Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem.  But, that
would
> > >make Xiph the bad guys...
> > >
> > >However there's something to this idea; it recognises the
recognition
> > >that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to load
someone's iPod
> > >for them I suspect there may be quite a few people using iPods
> > >thinking that mp3 is aac).  So what about:
> > >.music (Vorbis)
> > >.video (Theora + audio)
> > >.voice (Speex)
> > >.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
> > >.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
> > >
> > >I really am serious.  They're unused (AFAIK), they tell you
about
> > >content.  If people start trying to call other things .music (or
> > >similar), then they'll run into any extension problems, and if
> > >MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't working
> > >complaining they are more likely to try and do something about
that
> > >than they have been to act on Ogg.
> > >
> > >The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding, though I think this
> > >is more important for content publishers than consumers.
> >
> > Yes!  Your extensions list is actually more sensible than mine.  This
> > is aggresive marketing!  And it can work.  As long as software
> > developers are warned to support both new and legacy extensions, and
> > content developers encouraged to use the new extensions, it might just
> > work.  Pretty much, it's still a dual extension proposal, but with
> > foresight of promotion and locking illiterate users to think .music is
> > actually music, and .video is actually video, and nothing else.
> >
> > And I'm sure audiophiles will be happy with .music-perfect.
> >
> > What do others think?  Monty, Josh, Ralph, Jean-Marc, Mike?  Do any of
> > you agree on this proposal?
> >
> > The intent to get rid of extension flamewars due to exclusive use
> > of.ogg is still here.  Other priorities at work here are promotion and
> > clear confusion from the part of users.
> >
> > -Ivo
> >
> > P.S: There's still the disposition-type proposal to discuss. 
Should
> > we schedule a Monthly Meeting to discuss this and the above?
> > _______________________________________________
> > xiph-rtp mailing list
> > xiph-rtp@xiph.org
> > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
> _______________________________________________
> xiph-rtp mailing list
> xiph-rtp@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
>

On 1/16/07, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@real.com>
wrote:
> What happens when a new audio/video codec is added to the mix? A new
extension?
Nope.  As stated in the original message, it's not possible to guess
all kinds of combinations that may go inside an Ogg container, nor
what kind of new formats Xiph may develop in the future (Holy Ghost
Batman!).

This proposal is aimed at the more important formats in the Ogg
family, those that need to be marketed aggressively, those that are to
be used by the average joe.
> What would be the extension for a chained file that contains audio-only
> and A/V segments? (My _favorite_ corner case in the ogg format. :| )
.ogg

It falls under the mixed bag category mentioned above.
> What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo model?
> .oga (Vorbis, Speex)
> .ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)
All kinds of things are wrong there.  Those extensions use a three
letter namespace, they are hard to remember, easy to confuse, and
moreover they tell the user nothing much about what the file is
supposed to be about.
> Why do we need a new extension for FLAC?
Ian proposed a new extension for FLAC.  I, on the other hand, believe
FLAC players should accept .ogg as possible container for FLAC, as
right now they don't.  And the idea of Ogg FLAC has been around for
quite a while.

Although .music-perfect has a nice sound to it, it's possibly too
large for an extension.  Of course that applies to .video-perfect as
well, but those are so far only a suggestion asking for feedback.

Personally, I stand behind .video, .music and .voice.  It's simply perfect.

It's a shame that we are apparently going over yet another extension
flamewar, but things as they are, are not all right.  There wouldn't
be this kind of talk all the time if things were okay.  Let's hope a
consensus is achieved soon, because there's far more important things
to fix around here.
> Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if they really need
to
> determine which codec it contains.
If this were true in all (or most) cases, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
> Don't burden the masses with a ton of extensions just to appease
> a select few. Proliferation of a bunch of new extensions will only
> confuse users in my opinion.
Although I respect your opinion, I believe it's just the other way
around.  Moving away from legacy extensions, and in the process trying
to unite more the projects under Xiph will only benefit users.  Those
extensions are the kind easy enough to remember that if one day they
become mainstream, people will look with suspicion at things like
.wmv, .avi and .acc.  It just makes no sense.

Since players are (in theory) supposed to accept legacy extensions for
backwards-compatibility, the (few) people right now that care about
the Ogg family will not mind the change, as their old media will still
play well.

Finally, I also believe that this change means also a change of
attitude from Xiph.  Many in the industry, or even in the
mailing-lists here, have quite a few times pointed out that we are not
promoting our projects well, or even at all.  This, I hope, is a step
in the right direction.

On 1/16/07, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Also consider that the extensions and an associated mimetype will need
> to be ratified by the IETF to become "standard". They would never
> agree to these extensions since they are too broad.
This might be the only problem I've seen so far, and even then, I'm
not sure it's really a problem.  As far as I understand how the RFC
process works, extensions shouldn't mean much.  Regarding, MIME issues
though, I'll mention (again) Ralph's disposition-type proposal.  Since
to me it doesn't seem like it breaks any application that relies on
application/ogg, I doubt the IETF will oppose that.

Best wishes,
Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves

Aaron Colwell schrieb:
> Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if they really 
> need to
> determine which codec it contains.
>
In case of Ogg, the application is unfortunately only able to determine 
which codec(s) the Ogg file contains if detailed knowledge about the 
codecs is known already by the Ogg parser. I think I already suggested 
to e.g. add the stream's MIME type to the first Ogg page to make it 
easier for players to cope with new codecs embedded in an Ogg file.

Tor