[MPlayer-dev-eng] NUT cleanup

[Alexander Strasser]

Hi,

Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:44:52AM +0200, Alexander Strasser wrote:
> > Oded Shimon wrote:
> > > +			Semantic requirements
> > > +
> > > +If more than one stream of a given stream class is present, each one MUST
> > > +have info tags specifying disposition, and if applicable, language.
> > > +
> > > +A demuxer MUST NOT demux a stream which contains more than one stream, or which
> > > +is wrapped in a structure to facilitate more than one stream or otherwise
> > > +duplicate the role of a container. any such file is to be considered invalid.
> > 
> >   While i find the idea of the section good i find it way to strict.
> > Or wrongly expressed --- i am not sure...
> > 
> >   What for example if i remux a file from a different format with multiple
> > streams per class but the original file does not contain fields for
> > disposition (and/or language). I don't want my muxer to just insert `random'
> > valid fields just to be compliant with the nut specification. IMHO that
> 
> The semantic requirements are intended to be rules that the _user_ has
> to follow when making files, not rules by which the software should
> fudge around the user's mistakes. If a muxer wanted to be pedantic
> about this it could give a fatal error, but IMO it's better to leave
> the responsibility on the user.
> 
> So, what constitutes the user? IMO, if the input is coming from an
> actual person operating the software and feeding it arbitrary input,
> that person is the user. But if the input is coming from a
> self-contained environment actually generating the content
> (capture/encoding/etc.), the system should not be designed in such a
> way that it will violate the semantic requirements.
> 
> > would even be backwards with regard to the spirit of the semantic requirements
> > section. So I will end up with a invalid nut file.
> 
> :)
> 
> Perhaps there's room for discussing these, and replacing some MUST's
> with SHOULD's.

  IMO yes. Or reformulate the scentence to something similar to
what michael said in his reply.

> However if we have a "nutlint" program, it should
> definitely report files that break these rules as broken.

  Yes, it should report it. Reporting it as broken is a step too far
imho. But it should spit out a big fat eyecatching warning at least.
And yes, I know `broken' is one of your favourite words :)
  But i think a warning will be just as effective as broken anyway,
just think about all the ambitions people create when fanatically
silencing compiler warnings ;)

[2nd paragraph discussion]

  Read my reply to micheal's post.

  Alex (beastd)