On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Ian Malone <ibmalone at gmail.com> wrote:> 2008/8/15 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com>: >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:03 PM, ogg.k.ogg.k at googlemail.com >> <ogg.k.ogg.k at googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> Just one small question, 10.3: "In particular, .ogg is used for Ogg >>>>> files that contain only a Vorbis bitstream, while .spx is used for Ogg >>>>> files that contain only a Speex bitstream." >>>>> >>>>> Should that be a "Vorbis I" bitstream, or is it intentionally left open? >>>> >>>> Technically it is a Vorbis I bitstream, but I think we should leave >>>> that flexible. Any other opinions? >>> >>> I read the "Vorbis I" definition to be a (physical) stream composed of a single >>> (logical) Vorbis stream, so I'd say the wording implies it is Vorbis >>> I. >> >> Actually, thinking back, that was exactly what we implied: a Vorbis I >> stream is a Ogg file that contains only a Vorbis bitstream. Ian: is >> that good enough for you? >> > > Ouch, sorry for the delay. To be clear, I was thinking in terms of > Vorbis version; those bits in the Vorbis I spec which read like, > "Vorbis I specifies only a channel mapping type 0". Just wanted to > check whether it was intentional to leave it open or not.It was not fully thought through, discussed, and decided consciously to leave it open, if that's what you mean by "intentional". But we can make that decision now and decide to write "Vorbis I" more specifically, or leave it open. What would you suggest? Cheers, Silvia.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:31 AM, the discussion surrounded:>>>>> Technically it is a Vorbis I bitstream, but I think we should leave >>>>> that flexible. Any other opinions?I would leave it unspecified. It seems unlikely to me that any follow-up audio codec would end up being called Vorbis II. I suppose we could poll Monty for intent, but the media-type doesn't distinguish, so we'd in effect just make 'Vorbis II' naming contingent on compatibilty with the spec. I.e. having the same magic and version field location. -r
On 8/18/08, Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote:> I would leave it unspecified. It seems unlikely to me that any > follow-up audio codec would end up being called Vorbis II.That was my intent when using "Vorbis" as opposed to "Vorbis I". I vote to leave it as it is. -Ivo
2008/8/18 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com>:> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Ian Malone <ibmalone at gmail.com> wrote: >> 2008/8/15 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com>: >>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:03 PM, ogg.k.ogg.k at googlemail.com >>> <ogg.k.ogg.k at googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Just one small question, 10.3: "In particular, .ogg is used for Ogg >>>>>> files that contain only a Vorbis bitstream, while .spx is used for Ogg >>>>>> files that contain only a Speex bitstream." >>>>>> >>>>>> Should that be a "Vorbis I" bitstream, or is it intentionally left open? >>>>> >>>>> Technically it is a Vorbis I bitstream, but I think we should leave >>>>> that flexible. Any other opinions? >>>> >>>> I read the "Vorbis I" definition to be a (physical) stream composed of a single >>>> (logical) Vorbis stream, so I'd say the wording implies it is Vorbis >>>> I. >>> >>> Actually, thinking back, that was exactly what we implied: a Vorbis I >>> stream is a Ogg file that contains only a Vorbis bitstream. Ian: is >>> that good enough for you? >>> >> >> Ouch, sorry for the delay. To be clear, I was thinking in terms of >> Vorbis version; those bits in the Vorbis I spec which read like, >> "Vorbis I specifies only a channel mapping type 0". Just wanted to >> check whether it was intentional to leave it open or not. > > It was not fully thought through, discussed, and decided consciously > to leave it open, if that's what you mean by "intentional". But we can > make that decision now and decide to write "Vorbis I" more > specifically, or leave it open. > > What would you suggest? >Looks like the consensus is 'as is'. -- imalone