On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:37:18PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
I strongly belive we should design a system with a minimum set of restrictions. That is never add a restriction unless there is a proofen need adding restrictions based on hatred (even if we unanimously hate it) of specific things does not belong in nut IMO.
I don't think it's based on hate but on the fact that there's little practical possibility of implementing all the random things in part 2, whereas there's a well-defined profile of what actually is in use, and it's beneficial to players to know whether the stream will be playable by real-world decoders. As a concrete example, suppose some player has both lavc and some academic-toy reference implementation covering all of part 2 available. It would be helpful to know that it can play ordinary asp streams with lavc (with full-framerate decoding) as opposed to using the 0.1 fps toy-decoder for the experimental academic streams made by whoever implemented all those features. If you're still strongly opposed to making MP4V==ASP, I'll drop it, but I think there are valid reasons to consider specifying a profile. I'd be happy to also specify an "everything goes" part-2 fourcc if you like and it doesn't have to be "SHIT". =) Rich