On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 12:45:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Oded Shimon <ods15@ods15.dyndns.org> writes:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 11:47:05AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
What you're saying is that because any system CAN be abused, rather try to start out with something sane, you incorporate an existing, already very abused, "system" lock, stock and barrel. Makes no sense to me.
Last time we discussed it we ended with a "who implements the codeclist got it in the spec", nobody stepped up with a list nicer than what we have now.
I don't see ANY list. I don't care if you copy someone else's list, or invent your own, but whatever you do, it HAS to be in the spec.
one of the many proposed lists: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/nut-devel/2006-June/000433.html
Yes, there were a few PROPOSED lists. None of them were adopted in the actual spec.
This is mostly grave-digging. I've never cared strongly about the issue.
Therein lies the problem. You can't set out designing a file format ignoring one of the fundamental aspects. Until this changes, I consider the NUT format incomplete and a waste of time.
Would it make you happy if something like this was added to the spec? possible fourcc's: "XVID","DIVX","DX50","FMP4" MPEG-4 Part 2 "H264","h264" MPEG-4 Part 10 "vrbs" Xiph.org Vorbis "\x00\x50" MP1, MP2 "\x00\x55" MP3 .... * note: the list is not a complete list and values can be added in the future Since I don't care about the issue, I don't mind if you add such a thing to the spec... For you this is fundemental. For me, this is bikeshed. - ods15