On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 00:00 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:> > My applications are in speech processing. I have been using the .ala > > extension (has sort of a ring to it). There is a small database in the > > FreeCLAS project that has been dispensing .alas to the public. But not > > to worry, it has not attained social networking status. I am about to > > update it to the next release, and I'll be happy to use an Ogg standard > > extension. In that regard, since the "x" in this case is quite > > specificly "linguistic", could I bid for an .ogl extension for > > multi-track with linguistic content, if it is not already taken? > > The definition of new mime types (including file extensions) is > something that should be well considered, if you are planning for a > wider uptake of the file format. ogx (for ogg multiplex) is useful in > that it claims there could be anything in this ogg container and you > are free to use this extension for it. If that is not sufficient for > you and you think that your particular combination of tracks requires > a new mime type (e.g. "it is not just a ogg multiplex file, but a file > with linguistic content that will typically be used by linguistic > applications"), then you should totally invent your own mime and file > type (e.g. application/ogg+linguistic and .ogl). It's your choice. :) >I was trying to be flippant, and maybe not succeeding. Hopefully, others working in the linguistic areas will find ALingA useful, and ogl will emerge as a new type without requiring too much from me. Regards, Elaine
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM, ter<et at ihear.com> wrote:> I was trying to be flippant, and maybe not succeeding. Hopefully, others > working in the linguistic areas will find ALingA useful, and ogl will > emerge as a new type without requiring too much from me.BTW, .ala is just as valid as .ogl; it just depends on whether you want to emphasize it's an ogg container file or not. We were offering .ogx because it already has an registered mime-type; that won't ensure hand off to specifically your application, of course. -r
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:09 AM, ter<et at ihear.com> wrote:> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 00:00 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > >> > My applications are in speech processing. I have been using the .ala >> > extension (has sort of a ring to it). There is a small database in the >> > FreeCLAS project that has been dispensing .alas to the public. But not >> > to worry, it has not attained social networking status. I am about to >> > update it to the next release, and I'll be happy to use an Ogg standard >> > extension. In that regard, since the "x" in this case is quite >> > specificly "linguistic", could I bid for an .ogl extension for >> > multi-track with linguistic content, if it is not already taken? >> >> The definition of new mime types (including file extensions) is >> something that should be well considered, if you are planning for a >> wider uptake of the file format. ogx ?(for ogg multiplex) is useful in >> that it claims there could be anything in this ogg container and you >> are free to use this extension for it. If that is not sufficient for >> you and you think that your particular combination of tracks requires >> a new mime type (e.g. "it is not just a ogg multiplex file, but a file >> with linguistic content that will typically be used by linguistic >> applications"), then you should totally invent your own mime and file >> type (e.g. application/ogg+linguistic and .ogl). It's your choice. :) >> > I was trying to be flippant, and maybe not succeeding. Hopefully, others > working in the linguistic areas will find ALingA useful, and ogl will > emerge as a new type without requiring too much from me.Yes, but there's a serious side to this, too. :-) Make your choice and stick to it is all I can say, really. :) Cheers, Silvia.
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 10:18 -0700, Ralph Giles wrote:> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM, ter<et at ihear.com> wrote: > > > I was trying to be flippant, and maybe not succeeding. Hopefully, others > > working in the linguistic areas will find ALingA useful, and ogl will > > emerge as a new type without requiring too much from me. > > BTW, .ala is just as valid as .ogl; it just depends on whether you > want to emphasize it's an ogg container file or not. We were offering > .ogx because it already has an registered mime-type; that won't ensure > hand off to specifically your application, of course. > > -rI'll take all your comments into consideration if it becomes necessary to make such a formal choice. It seems to me to be a little early to do that now before more applications are developed using ALingA. Regards, Elaine