On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:02:03PM +1200, John Morton
wrote:> I'm not sure that I understand why a distinct file extension for video
is
> considered so bad.
Well, it's *not* in any practical way except one: IANA says that any
ogg content is application/ogg and its extension is .ogg. That's
official, and we echo that. On the OSes we use ouselves, that doesn't
happen to be a liability. Actually for nearly all users of any OS, it's not
a liability either. The average Mom & Pop user uses WiMP for everything,
audio and video.
The power users are complaining that we're advocating something that
makes their lives difficult. I find it amusing that the power users
are so adamant against any change to what they're doing right now.
> It seems to me that the minimum effort case of continuing to treat .ogg as
a
> multimedia container that could have all sorts of things in it, but is
> probably just audio, and something like .ogv which means a stream
containing
> primarily video will spare anyone from having to write and maintain
multiple
> helper apps to overcome the problem of their being specialist video and
audio
> players, while not causing any real problems down the road when the media
> players converge to playing both types as a matter of course.
Then by all means, use .ogv. You'll end up with MIME association problems
though.
> What am I missing?
The fact that this argument is all about ego, but I think you guessed
that already and was hoping it wasn't true :-)
Monty