[MPlayer-cvslog] r19258 - trunk/DOCS/tech/oggless-xiph-codecs.txt

[Luca Barbato]

Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> i do like the idea of a RFC but
> 1. i dont like xml

The alternatives not so much developed are troff and latex.

The xmlrfc has many advantages over other ways (if it is used properly),
first of all you have a webtool and a command line tool quite
lightweight[1] the other tools aren't that nice or that small.

I found quite handy having a way to check my rfc on the fly and convert
them in many different formats directly from web.

> 2. i dont like it if functional changes are mixed with cosmetic

the correct way to commit it is:
a. commit a skel rfc with nothing else but author and the compulsory
sections.
b. populate it section by section using the textdraft.
c. work on the xml as it is text.

> 3. i dont like it if changes are not disscussed, if you are sure
>    something is correct then no problem but the mov/mp4 changes
>    where all wrong and should have been disscussed before commiting

I think is the standard way of developing, isn't it?

> 
> so the following must be clarified
> A. why xml?

 - It is the quickest and simplest way to get a proper rfc.
 - xmlrfc is quite good for its job

> B. do you agree on discussing every non trivial change before committing it?

 - I don't see why not

> C. do you agree to keep functional changes and cosmetics seperate?

 - see B


Mind if we rediscuss the xml vs txt issue from this email and enjoy some
ice in our cola? =)

lu

[1] http://xml.resource.org
-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero