Theora and Vorbis both uses same extension .ogg. I know ogg is a container, just like avi. But in my opinion video and audio files should have different extensions (using .ogv can be a nice idea). To a media player it doesn't matter what extension a file uses, but to a human who does a ls in a directory full of media files having different extensions will help a lot. I know one can use file command to do that, but we should not consider only geeks but also an average user. theora and vorbis websites should clearly mention something like use .ogg for audio and .ogv for video files. thanks and regards, Nilesh Bansal. http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/nilesh/
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 16:10, Nilesh Bansal wrote:> Theora and Vorbis both uses same extension .ogg. I know ogg is a > container, just like avi. But in my opinion video and audio files should > have different extensions (using .ogv can be a nice idea). > > To a media player it doesn't matter what extension a file uses, but to a > human who does a ls in a directory full of media files having different > extensions will help a lot. I know one can use file command to do that, > but we should not consider only geeks but also an average user.Hi, is a wav that contains an mp3 file a wav or an mp3 ? is an .avi containing only audio an audio file or a video file ? is an .mp4 file containing only audio an audio file or a video file ? Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> I should dress you up in pearl Finest silk to touch your skin Don't know how to write a love song But don't leave <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/
<1087397268.3244.0.camel@otto.amantes> Message-ID: <1205602105.20040616173638@guest.arnes.si> On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, 16:47:49, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:> is a wav that contains an mp3 file a wav or an mp3 ?How often do you see an MP3 file with a WAV header that has WAV extension instead of MP3?> is an .avi containing only audio an audio file or a video file ?I haven't ever seen an AVI file that wouldn't contain video.> is an .mp4 file containing only audio an audio file or a video file ?Why did extension OGM become popular for Ogg files that contain video? Because it's much easier to just look at the file name and know "this contains video". Or, if you list files in a graphical file manager, it's faster to just look at the icon to tell what kind of file it is. And guess what's the fastest way to assign a file type icon to a file? -- < Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ > < for personal mail, replace guest.arnes.si with isg.si > The bus that left the stop just before you got there is your bus. -- First Law of Bus Transportation
From: "Nilesh Bansal" <bansal@cs.ubc.ca>> Theora and Vorbis both uses same extension .ogg. I know ogg is a > container, just like avi. But in my opinion video and audio files should > have different extensions (using .ogv can be a nice idea).This has been discussed several other times. Most people do indeed seem to feel that for the user's sake, it's better to have seperate extensions for audio and video. Even Microsoft gave in and went from asf to wma & wmv for that same reason. And with directory sorting done by extension, audio sorting apps, and p2p networks that work by file extension, and so on, it's a great convenience to everybody to have an official extension for audio & video files, even if the file format itself is the same. But I don't remember ever reading an official anouncement about what the extensions would be. I don't think there was ever an agreement. Some were saying that 'ogg' should always be generic and that there should be seperate extensions for audio & video specific files. Others were saying it's too late to change .ogg since that is recognized as being Vorbis. A few others were saying that if you are going to seperate Audio & Video, then you might as well seperate a bit further with other extensions to indicate the type of codec. Some were saying we should just add a second file extension, and leave .ogg alone. And a few were saying that it was a waste of time because any smart user could do that manually themselves, and use whatever extension they might want. And on and on.
<001601c453b9$c29ada40$1f649c3f@computername> <40D0780B.7090405@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <000d01c453c7$4f907100$1f649c3f@computername> From: "Jon Doda" <jdoda@sympatico.ca>> Modern file managers use extensions to determine a file's mime-type, so > the only rational way to do it would be to implement an audio/x-ogg > mime-type for ogg files who's primary stream is audio and a video/x-ogg > mime-type for ogg files who's primary stream is video, with > corresponding .oga and .ogv file extensions. application/ogg and the > .ogg file extension would remain the same, representing an ogg file with > completely arbitrary contents.Things like that have been mentioned before, but actually it wouldn't have to be that complicated. The goal here is to help the user recognise the differences, not the OS or application (unless they work based solely on file extension.) Simply make extra extensions, such as OGM or OGV or whatever you want be pseudonyms for .ogg They all behave in the exact same way. The audio extension doesn't have to behave any differently than the video or the generic extensions. No error checking is done, in case you use the video extension on an audio file. After all, the container format isn't changing. Just the *user's perception* of what the file contains. Any application that can handle the generic .ogg extension can handle the others. Just like current programs do. The only application changes would be that programs would need to recognise two or three extensions instead of just .ogg, and depending on the application, it might suggest the prefered extension. A vorbis audio encoder would automatically default to the prefered audio extension. A Theora video encoder might automatically default to using the video extension. But since all the extensions behave the same, they all behave the same in any application that uses them. Even if you use the wrong extension on the file. Users that sort based on file extensions get them sorted. Applications (such as p2p) that use the file extension to decide whether a file is audio or video can easily do that. Media applications that expect .ogg as being vorbis can still do so, and if it's only an audio player, then it doesn't have to bother even knowing about the video extension. And so on. The OS wouldn't have to be able to actually look into the file and determine whether it had a video part or not. It just takes the extension at face value. Just like they currently do with other extensions. All that's really needed is the developers to officially say: We recommend using .ogg for Vorbis audio and .ogv for Ogg Theora video. Or some such. But this subject has been discussed several times before and it seems the developers don't want to create other extensions because they still like the idea of .ogg being a generic container, even though the rest of the world associates it exclusively with Vorbis audio.
<001601c453b9$c29ada40$1f649c3f@computername> <40D0780B.7090405@sympatico.ca> <000d01c453c7$4f907100$1f649c3f@computername> <40D08783.10605@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <000f01c453d3$aa2fca00$ad389c3f@computername> From: "Jon Doda" <jdoda@sympatico.ca> If you reply, you need to be sure and add Theora@xiph.org to reply to the list. Otherwise it just gets sent only to the person.> I think that's backwards. The user can figure out whether a file is > audio or video already without too much trouble, from looking at the > name or size of the file, and from context.In many cases they can, yes. Especially if they are the ones who ripped the cd into that format or converted it into that video format. But don't forget, the vast majority of media programs today look solely at the file extension to decide whether they even recognise the file. That's how they know to look at .mp3 and not even bother with .TXT files, etc. They don't go to a file, open it, read the contents and then try to decide if they should know about it. (Well, Windows XP sort of does that with .AVI files, and look at what happens to it when the file is damaged.... It pretty well locks up until it finally decides it doesn't know how to handle it. Sometimes that can take several minutes. All because it tries to be 'fancy' and 'helpful' and actually looks at the file contents.) And every p2p program does that too. They'll look exclusively at the file extension to know whether the file gets put into the audio, video, text, etc. categories. Regardless of your opinion of p2p, or whether you only do legal stuff or have a collection large enough to make the RIAA & MPA cackle with glee, p2p programs are here to stay, and they only look at the extension to determine what kind of file it is. On the web, when you see a file, it might be named: Jane Child - Don't wanna fall in love.EXT Is that the audio or the music video? Maybe the context of the web page will tell you, but most users will look at the extension. If it's .mp3 it's audio. If it's .avi it's video. If it's .WMA it's audio. If it's .WMV it's video. If it's .ASF then they don't know because it could be either. If it's .RAM they don't know because it could be either. If it's .mp4 then they don't because it could be either. If it's .OGG they expect it to be audio, even though it could be video. At least with .AVI you know it's extremely likely there is video in there. But you don't know it for sure. The same is true for .mp4.... Is it audio or video? That was solved by just changing the file extension to .m4a for audio. Still the same file format though. Still possible to have video in there. Same for the .WMA and .WMV format. The same exact file type and still possible to have audio and / or video in either extension. The extension is there for the user's convenience. With a container format, the application has to know what to do if it contains something other than what they thought. That's just the way it is. It's not unique to .OGG> name or size of the file, and from context. It's the file manager (and > almost all file managers now work by mapping an extension to a > mime-type) and applications that have to be able to tell the difference.Not with the ogg format they don't. It's a generic container. They have to be able to deal with both video and audio. If they can't deal with video, then it'll be up to the application what happens. Probably they'll just ignore the video part. Not only do they have to deal with both audio and video being possible in a .ogg, but they also have to face the fact that it may not be vorbis but some other codec in the ogg container. (Such as FLAC, speex, mp3, Theora, Divx, XVid, etc.) By adding an audio and/or video extension, it wont help applications in the slightest because it will *still* be the exact same ogg container file. It would still be possible for the supposedly audio file to actually be a video file. The same is true for any container format, such as .mp4, WMA/WMV, AVI, etc. The extension would be for the user's convenience. Such as easily recognising the differences, or making it easy to tell one program to handle the audio extension and another program to handle the video extension. Same container, just for the user's convenience.> It's true there was a trend toward applications that handled both > audio and video, but (due largely to the influence of iTunes) they're > now starting to differentiate again.It's not about media players being able to do both or just one. They are going to have to do that anyway because the .ogg extension is generic and the container can handle both audio & video. They already *have* to be able to know to ignore the video (or anything else) if they can't handle it.> I want my video oggs to open in Totem and my audio oggs to open in > Rythmbox, but without separate mime-types and extensions that can't be > done. That's the problem that has to be solved.It aint going to be solved the way you want. That's pretty obvious. But if you put your audio as .ogg and your video's as .ogv or such, then it's *trivial* to do what you want. The player just needs to be told of the extension. (ie: programmed into it with the next revision, or told manually by you.) It'll just be a plain alias to the already exsting .OGG format that it knows how to handle. No new MIME type required. If the player hasn't been updated to know that different extensions are being used, just go into the file manager and tell it to always use app XYZ to handle a file with extension .ABC Nobody here is suggesting or planning to create new file formats or container formats. You can forget about that. It will always and forever be possible for a .OGG, .OGA, .OGM, .OGV etc. file to hold audio only, video with no audio, or both audio and video. And with several different codecs possible for both the audio and video parts.. So an application is going to have to be able to deal with a generic ogg container with arbitrary contents. Just like they already should. You aren't going to solve that unless you create brand new audio only & A/V specific containers, and that is not going to happen. The only thing being discussed is a way to help the user (and some programs) recognise the difference between an audio and video file for the user's convenience.
<001601c453b9$c29ada40$1f649c3f@computername> <40D0780B.7090405@sympatico.ca> <000d01c453c7$4f907100$1f649c3f@computername> <40D08783.10605@sympatico.ca> <000f01c453d3$aa2fca00$ad389c3f@computername> Message-ID: <40D0A893.10209@sympatico.ca> Freun Laven wrote:> From: "Jon Doda" <jdoda@sympatico.ca> > > If you reply, you need to be sure and add Theora@xiph.org to reply to > the list. Otherwise it just gets sent only to the person.Sorry, I forgot that this list doesn't mangle the reply-to header. Anyway, we're clearly talking at cross-purposes now. All that my original email was trying to convey was that the smart way to implement new file extensions would be to add one (.ogv) that indicates the file should be opened in a video player, and one (.oga) that indicates the file should be opened in an audio player. This allows the .ogg extension to keep its current meaning, and makes everyone very happy. My only other point was that you would, of course, also need two new mime-types (video/x-ogg and audio/x-ogg) for these extensions to map to. Otherwise most file managers would not be able to open files with different extensions using different applications, because they only use the extension to determine the mime-type of a file, and then use the mime-type to determine which application to use. I never said anything about new containers or new file formats or even restrictive muxing guidelines, nor do I think any of those things would be useful. So, I'm not sure why we're arguing, since I can't find a whole lot that we actually disagree about :). -- Jon Doda
<1087397268.3244.0.camel@otto.amantes> <1205602105.20040616173638@guest.arnes.si> Message-ID: <1087463776.3244.7.camel@otto.amantes> On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:36, Jernej Simon?i? wrote:> On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, 16:47:49, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote: > > > is a wav that contains an mp3 file a wav or an mp3 ? > > How often do you see an MP3 file with a WAV header that has WAV extension > instead of MP3?As a developer on GStreamer, I often see mp3-contained-in-wav/riff-header-renamed-to-mp3, which is incredibly broken on three different points. You seem to suggest it's actually the right thing to do ? Let's see - .wav is a well-defined file format, having a riff header, with an id that says what type of data it is. If the type of data is mp3, then the id says so. So far, so good. It's clearly established that this is a fully compliant .wav file that just happens to contain mp3 audio. Now you're telling me that the right thing to do is to rename it to have an .mp3 extension ? Are you the guy that creates all those files that makes us shake our heads as developers wondering what the creator was thinking when he deliberately broke specs and formats ?> > is an .avi containing only audio an audio file or a video file ? > > I haven't ever seen an AVI file that wouldn't contain video.Why do you give an answer to a question I didn't ask ?> > is an .mp4 file containing only audio an audio file or a video file ? > > Why did extension OGM become popular for Ogg files that contain video? > Because it's much easier to just look at the file name and know "this > contains video".No, because OGM is not Ogg, and the people that hacked up OGM decided to name it OGM. That's it. AFAIK Xiph has *always* declared that files with .ogg extensions are whatever type of media as long as it uses the ogg container.> Or, if you list files in a graphical file manager, it's > faster to just look at the icon to tell what kind of file it is. And guess > what's the fastest way to assign a file type icon to a file?I'll tell you and it's not what you think. The fastest way is either completely random or just use the same icon for everything. With your practice of putting mp3-in-wav then renaming to mp3, it will actually be more often right than what you think is the fastest way, namely checking the extension. Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> I could do so much harm I could do you no good I'll leave a stain in your heart I would <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/
<1087397268.3244.0.camel@otto.amantes> <1205602105.20040616173638@guest.arnes.si> <1087463776.3244.7.camel@otto.amantes> Message-ID: <36695459.20040617152024@guest.arnes.si> On Thursday, June 17, 2004, 11:16:16, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:> Now you're telling me that the right thing to do is to rename it to have > an .mp3 extension ?No, I'm saying that I've seen a lot of MP3 files, which had the RIFF header, but only a few of them had .WAV extension when I got them. I never said that this was right, but it certainly helps identifying what kind of content the file has.>> And guess >> what's the fastest way to assign a file type icon to a file?^^^^^^^^^> I'll tell you and it's not what you think. The fastest way is either > completely random or just use the same icon for everything.I said specifically file type icons, not something random. Why are you so against having separate extensions for (from the user's POV) different files? As an end-user, I want to use program X for music, and program Y for videos, and when I click on a file, I want it to open in the appropriate program. Given how file managers work, it's the least hassle for everybody to just have one extension for files that contain video, and another for those that don't. -- < Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ > < for personal mail, replace guest.arnes.si with isg.si > Nature abhors a vacuous experimenter. -- Campbell's Law
<1087463776.3244.7.camel@otto.amantes> Message-ID: <005801c4547c$1338e470$6a00a8c0@CROTEAM.local> You can fight as much as you want, but end users will want to have different extensions for audio and video files, and they are going to rename their files, this way or another. So it would be best if the Theora team makes up their mind and clearly states what is the officially recommended extension for video files stored in Ogg containers. Just say something like: "We think all files should be .ogg, but those who don't like it that way should use .xyz for video files and .yxz for audio files." If that is not done, people are going to start inventing their own extensions for that purpose, and use a whole set of different extensions and it's gonna be messy, very messy. If you can't fight them, and you don't want to join them, at least steer them. ;) Just my $0.02, Alen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Vander Stichele" <thomas@apestaart.org> To: "Jernej Simoncic" <jernej.simoncic@guest.arnes.si> Cc: "Thomas Vander Stichele on [theora]" <theora@xiph.org> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 09:16 Subject: Re: [Theora] Theora file extension On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:36, Jernej Simoncic wrote:> On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, 16:47:49, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote: > > > is a wav that contains an mp3 file a wav or an mp3 ? > > How often do you see an MP3 file with a WAV header that has WAV extension > instead of MP3?As a developer on GStreamer, I often see mp3-contained-in-wav/riff-header-renamed-to-mp3, which is incredibly broken on three different points. You seem to suggest it's actually the right thing to do ? Let's see - .wav is a well-defined file format, having a riff header, with an id that says what type of data it is. If the type of data is mp3, then the id says so. So far, so good. It's clearly established that this is a fully compliant .wav file that just happens to contain mp3 audio. Now you're telling me that the right thing to do is to rename it to have an .mp3 extension ? Are you the guy that creates all those files that makes us shake our heads as developers wondering what the creator was thinking when he deliberately broke specs and formats ?> > is an .avi containing only audio an audio file or a video file ? > > I haven't ever seen an AVI file that wouldn't contain video.Why do you give an answer to a question I didn't ask ?> > is an .mp4 file containing only audio an audio file or a video file ? > > Why did extension OGM become popular for Ogg files that contain video? > Because it's much easier to just look at the file name and know "this > contains video".No, because OGM is not Ogg, and the people that hacked up OGM decided to name it OGM. That's it. AFAIK Xiph has *always* declared that files with .ogg extensions are whatever type of media as long as it uses the ogg container.> Or, if you list files in a graphical file manager, it's > faster to just look at the icon to tell what kind of file it is. And guess > what's the fastest way to assign a file type icon to a file?I'll tell you and it's not what you think. The fastest way is either completely random or just use the same icon for everything. With your practice of putting mp3-in-wav then renaming to mp3, it will actually be more often right than what you think is the fastest way, namely checking the extension. Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> I could do so much harm I could do you no good I'll leave a stain in your heart I would <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/ _______________________________________________ Theora mailing list Theora@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/theora
<1087397268.3244.0.camel@otto.amantes> <1205602105.20040616173638@guest.arnes.si> <1087463776.3244.7.camel@otto.amantes> <36695459.20040617152024@guest.arnes.si> Message-ID: <1087504663.3157.7.camel@otto.amantes> Hi,> On Thursday, June 17, 2004, 11:16:16, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote: > > > Now you're telling me that the right thing to do is to rename it to have > > an .mp3 extension ? > > No, I'm saying that I've seen a lot of MP3 files, which had the RIFF header, > but only a few of them had .WAV extension when I got them. I never said that > this was right, but it certainly helps identifying what kind of content the > file has.It doesn't, since the content is a wave file, not an mp3. So it's wrong if the browser tells me it's mp3, because it doesn't conform to the mp3 standard and it does conform to the wav standard.> > >> And guess > >> what's the fastest way to assign a file type icon to a file? > ^^^^^^^^^ > > I'll tell you and it's not what you think. The fastest way is either > > completely random or just use the same icon for everything. > > I said specifically file type icons, not something random.Yes, and I'm telling you that assigning a random icon to the file has more chance of being correct than your method of giving the abovementioned wave file that happens to have an .mp3 extension an icon based on the extension. For the simple reason that doing that is always wrong, since it's a wav and not an mp3.> Why are you so against having separate extensions for (from the user's POV) > different files?I'm not against it. I'm just giving you other examples where it just doesn't work, and you're chosing to ignore them. I myself prefer a system that quickly identifies the file correctly. It'd be nice if file extensions can be trusted, but they can't.> As an end-user, I want to use program X for music, and > program Y for videos, and when I click on a file, I want it to open in the > appropriate program. Given how file managers work, it's the least hassle for > everybody to just have one extension for files that contain video, and > another for those that don't.So if your mp3 player doesn't play .wav files, what happens when you open the wav file with .mp3 extension mentioned before ? Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> Ik voel me zo door jou verlaten als een zoebox zonder platen <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/
<1087397268.3244.0.camel@otto.amantes> <1205602105.20040616173638@guest.arnes.si> <1087463776.3244.7.camel@otto.amantes> <36695459.20040617152024@guest.arnes.si> <1087504663.3157.7.camel@otto.amantes> Message-ID: <20040617225401.4e444723.rcooley@spamcop.net> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:37:43 +0200 Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas@apestaart.org> wrote:> It'd be nice if file extensions can be trusted, but they can't.Sure they can. At least to the extent that they say if it's audio or video... When was the last time you found a .divx file without video? When was the last time you found a .wma file with video?> So if your mp3 player doesn't play .wav files, what happens when you > open the wav file with .mp3 extension mentioned before ?The same thing that happens if your wav player doesn't play mp3 content inside a wav file. There are standards, and then there are standards... In the real world, you don't see mp3 content in wav files, you don't see audio-only avi files, etc. There's a reason just about every different format has a different file extention. And there's a very good reason why audio and video files don't have the same extensions. Audio players don't play video, video players aren't good at audio, and 99.9% of filemanagers decide what to open a file with based solely upon the file extention. If there is no official video-only extention, you're sure to see at least 2 or more different ones gain popularity.
<1087463776.3244.7.camel@otto.amantes> Message-ID: <40D28C2F.4060200@cs.ubc.ca>>is a wav that contains an mp3 file a wav or an mp3 ?>>How often do you see an MP3 file with a WAV header that has WAV extension >>instead of MP3? >> >> > >As a developer on GStreamer, I often see >mp3-contained-in-wav/riff-header-renamed-to-mp3, which is incredibly >broken on three different points. > > >Which codec is used in a media file is not that we should be discussing. All that we need is some easy way of identifying weather a file is audio or a video file. When i see a file on a ftp server, i should easily be able find if its a audio or a video file. And there is _no_ solution to this problem except to use different extensions. A user doesn't care weather his image file is .jpg, .png or .gif and extensions don't serve any purpose other than human convinience. So .png, .gif, and .jpg should be .img; .mng and some .mpg and .wmv should be .vid; .wav, .ogg, and .mp3 should be .aud. If main aim of extensions is just human convinience, then why not have 2 different extensions (.ogv and .oga??).>You seem to suggest it's actually the right thing to do ? > >Let's see - .wav is a well-defined file format, having a riff header, >with an id that says what type of data it is. If the type of data is >mp3, then the id says so. So far, so good. It's clearly established >that this is a fully compliant .wav file that just happens to contain >mp3 audio. > >Now you're telling me that the right thing to do is to rename it to have >an .mp3 extension ? > >Are you the guy that creates all those files that makes us shake our >heads as developers wondering what the creator was thinking when he >deliberately broke specs and formats ? > > > >>>is an .avi containing only audio an audio file or a video file ? >>> >>> >>I haven't ever seen an AVI file that wouldn't contain video. >> >> > >Why do you give an answer to a question I didn't ask ? > > > >>>is an .mp4 file containing only audio an audio file or a video file ? >>> >>> >>Why did extension OGM become popular for Ogg files that contain video? >>Because it's much easier to just look at the file name and know "this >>contains video". >> >> > >No, because OGM is not Ogg, and the people that hacked up OGM decided to >name it OGM. That's it. AFAIK Xiph has *always* declared that files >with .ogg extensions are whatever type of media as long as it uses the >ogg container. > > > >> Or, if you list files in a graphical file manager, it's >>faster to just look at the icon to tell what kind of file it is. And guess >>what's the fastest way to assign a file type icon to a file? >> >> > >I'll tell you and it's not what you think. The fastest way is either >completely random or just use the same icon for everything. With your >practice of putting mp3-in-wav then renaming to mp3, it will actually be >more often right than what you think is the fastest way, namely checking >the extension. > >Thomas > >Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ ><-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> >I could do so much harm >I could do you no good >I'll leave a stain in your heart I would ><-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> >URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/ > > >_______________________________________________ >Theora mailing list >Theora@xiph.org >http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/theora > >
<40D28C2F.4060200@cs.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <40D28FA5.10800@iaph.bas-net.by> Please, don't break things already exist. There is nice ogg extention. Only ogv (or ogm) is required for video. Nilesh Bansal wrote:> > If main aim of extensions is just human convinience, then why not have > 2 different extensions (.ogv and .oga??). >-- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich
<1087397268.3244.0.camel@otto.amantes> <1205602105.20040616173638@guest.arnes.si> <1087463776.3244.7.camel@otto.amantes> <40D28C2F.4060200@cs.ubc.ca> <40D28FA5.10800@iaph.bas-net.by> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0406230016380.9560@albani.cs.ubc.ca> So, should we start using .ogg for audio and .ogv for video? Before people start using extensions of their choice, some common scheme needs to be announced on theora website. On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:> Please, don't break things already exist. There is nice ogg extention. Only > ogv (or ogm) is required for video. >regards, Nilesh Bansal http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/nilesh/