search for: rechained

> Right. This was, in fact, one of the roles of "chaining" where you'd > mark such changed components with a chain boundary, at which such > things are explicitly allowed to change. The drawbacks are the > overhead of resending all the setup data for configurable codecs like > vorbis and theora, and the semantic conflict between 'chain boundary > flags an edit

On Feb 11, 2008 9:27 PM, ogg.k.ogg.k@googlemail.com < ogg.k.ogg.k@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Right. This was, in fact, one of the roles of "chaining" where you'd > > mark such changed components with a chain boundary, at which such > > things are explicitly allowed to change. The drawbacks are the > > overhead of resending all the setup data for

I have a couple of questions with respect to "vorbisfile_example.c" in the ov sdk. 1) Near the end, there is a comment that says "we don't bother dealing with sample rate changes, etc, but you'll have to." I assume the author is regarding to different sample rates as a whole, not dynamic sample rates. Am I correct in that assumption? 2) That etc

> Some of the things you talk about were not solved at the CMML level, but > rather through using different Ogg > logical bitstreams. While this is possible to do it this way (and probably a good idea for the examples like a clock in a corner), it implies that all the placements and logically different "items" are known at the start of the stream (since the Ogg spec says a