[NUT-devel] NUT documentation

[Rich Felker]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 07:41:47PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:
> 
> > Attached is my attempts so far at documenting NUT in English as
> > opposed to Lingua Dei Codicis. :) I'm told that, given good
> > documentation on NUT, Måns is possibly willing to update the lavf
> > implementation. The intent of this document is not to replace the
> > formal spec that already exists, but rather for it to be developed
> > into the "informative" (as opposed to normative) parts of the spec,
> > particularly what one might call a "Usage" section. Rationale and
> > Examples might be other non-normative sections we should consider
> > writing.
> >
> > So far my writing has been somewhat disorganized. I think it could
> > make a much better presentation if it used more itemized lists,
> > tables, etc. Actually I'd be very happy if other people want to work
> > on improving this; what I've set out is just the groundwork I think.
> >
> > Comments? Revisions? Frames? (Pardon my Engrish. :) Ideas for merging
> > this into a nice specification document?
> 
> Are you people completely nuts?  That text would do fine as a magazine
> article about a new file format.  It tells the reader nothing
> whatsoever of use for writing a demuxer, let alone a muxer.
> 
> What I'm asking for is a NORMATIVE description of the MEANING of each
> syntax element.  There is some hint at such a section in the so-called
> spec.  This should be expanded considerably.  Also needed is a
> detailed explanation of the interactions between different syntax
> elements, particularly frame_code and timestamp related things.
> 
> Some notes on rationale are welcome too, but not strictly necessary.
> 
> Now you may as well forget all this anyway.  Without a defined way of
> determining the codec for a stream, the format is useless.  As you
> have previously refused to do anything about this, I'm not pursuing it
> further.

This was already done... *sigh*
If you weren't interesting in working on this why didn't you just say
so rather than flaming me after I try to put a lot of work into it.

The structure of the syntax elements is already described in detail.
What I've attempted to write (still extremely incomplete) is a guide
for someone reading the spec to get the big picture. I'm sorry if it
doesn't meet the expectations of what you were looking for, but I
don't think it merits flame.

Rich