Martin Leese
2007-Oct-01 22:23 UTC
[Vorbis-dev] Re: [ogg-dev] Peer review draft for the new
"Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: ...> First though let me start a discussion on skeleton here, which is > fundamental to this rfc and for which I'd like to get more input from > everyone. > > I think, "application/ogg" makes not much sense without having > skeleton inside the ogg file. Half the reason for having a generic, > free-ended encapsulation format is to have headers that can specify > what is within such that any decoder has a chance to assess whether it > will be able to do something sensible with it. So, I would like to > actually prescribe the use of skeleton in application/ogg files....> Just to be clear - I would not prescribe skeleton for audio/ogg files > with ogg extension, which are clearly the old vorbis 1 files only. Or > to spx files, which are speex files under audio/ogg. But "SHOULD" > should work for audio/ogg with oga extensions without getting anyone > into trouble. > > Opinions anyone?I am an outsider here, but sometimes that helps. When I first read the Ogg Skeleton stuff, my reaction was "you mean the Ogg container doesn't have this built in?" I would suggest some general principles: 1. Ogg Skeleton should be as mandatory as possible without breaking significant numbers of existing files in the wild. There are obviously loads of Ogg Vorbis out there. If there are only a few Ogg speex files in the wild then they are better handled by a tool to automatically convert. 2. Following on from 1, a tool which inputs an Ogg containier with one or more streams, and outputs a new Ogg container with the same streams plus an Ogg Skeleton stream stuffed in front would be very helpful. The tool could also select and create the appropriate file extension. 3. You can't discuss Ogg contents without also discussing the minimum requirements for Ogg players. I would suggest it is time to bite the bullet and specify that players must recognize and decode an Ogg Skeleton stream if present. At the moment, Ogg Skeleton can break existing players. This has got to change if Xiph is to move forward. Existing player developers will need support to do this, and you will lose a few who can't/wont do it, but it has to be done. Discussion should be about "when" and "how", not "if". Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese@stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
Jean-Marc Valin
2007-Oct-01 23:12 UTC
[Vorbis-dev] Re: [ogg-dev] Peer review draft for the new
> 1. Ogg Skeleton should be as mandatory as > possible without breaking significant numbers > of existing files in the wild. > > There are obviously loads of Ogg Vorbis out > there. If there are only a few Ogg speex files > in the wild then they are better handled by a > tool to automatically convert.It's hard to tell how many Ogg/Speex (.spx) files there are out there, but I see no reason to break them because of Skeleton. Also, Speex files are probably the ones for which Skeleton is the least relevant, simply because they tend to be single-codec files. If you can afford to put the bandwidth required for Theora (or any video codec), you can afford the quality/bitrate of Vorbis. Whether Skeleton should now be included by default for Speex is still an open question, though. I would tend to say yes once most of the decoders implement it properly.> At the moment, Ogg Skeleton can break > existing players. This has got to change if > Xiph is to move forward. Existing player > developers will need support to do this, and > you will lose a few who can't/wont do it, but it > has to be done. Discussion should be about > "when" and "how", not "if".Well, this is definitely not a decision to take lightly -- at least when it comes to Vorbis-only files. Jean-Marc
Martin Leese wrote:> "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> First though let me start a discussion on skeleton here, which is >> fundamental to this rfc and for which I'd like to get more input from >> everyone. >> >> I think, "application/ogg" makes not much sense without having >> skeleton inside the ogg file. Half the reason for having a generic, >> free-ended encapsulation format is to have headers that can specify >> what is within such that any decoder has a chance to assess whether it >> will be able to do something sensible with it. So, I would like to >> actually prescribe the use of skeleton in application/ogg files.<snip: not for .spx, .ogg>> > I am an outsider here, but sometimes that helps. >> > 1. Ogg Skeleton should be as mandatory as > possible without breaking significant numbers > of existing files in the wild. > > There are obviously loads of Ogg Vorbis out > there. If there are only a few Ogg speex files > in the wild then they are better handled by a > tool to automatically convert. >I think the Speex thing is a detail. However as .spx and .ogg are legacy provisions my opinion is changing .spx would be contrary to that.> 2. Following on from 1, a tool which inputs an > Ogg containier with one or more streams, and > outputs a new Ogg container with the same > streams plus an Ogg Skeleton stream stuffed > in front would be very helpful. The tool could > also select and create the appropriate file > extension. >This is pretty easy to write using liboggz from svn and Tahseen's skeleton creating functions (in his vorbis-tools branch). I just haven't found an afternoon to do it yet.> 3. You can't discuss Ogg contents without also > discussing the minimum requirements for Ogg > players. I would suggest it is time to bite the > bullet and specify that players must recognize > and decode an Ogg Skeleton stream if > present. > > At the moment, Ogg Skeleton can break > existing players. This has got to change if > Xiph is to move forward. Existing player > developers will need support to do this, and > you will lose a few who can't/wont do it, but it > has to be done. Discussion should be about > "when" and "how", not "if". >I've thought since the 'clean-break' realisation occurred for application/ogg audio/ogg and video/ogg that the things you and Silvia have suggested were an implicit part of this change. The only one I'd raise an eyebrow at is players must decode Skeleton rather than simply tolerate its presence; Particularly since I'm not sure what the practical requirements would be. (And applications shouldn't---in the plain English sense---trust the Skeleton header for security reasons. It can only be a guide.) -- imalone -- imalone -- imalone
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Re: Peer review draft for the new
- tool to add skeleton (was Re: Re: Peer review draft for the new)
- tool to add skeleton (was Re: Re: Peer review draft for the new)
- Re: Peer review draft for the new media types/file extensions
- Re: Peer review draft for the new media types/file extensions