Hi On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:06:24AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:46:46PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Luca Barbato said:
Oded Shimon wrote:
I actually considered it after sending this mail, I think the only advantage of 4-char fourcc is saying explictly in the spec all fourcc must be 4 bytes (even ommit the 'length' field for it). If we decide we don't want that, then IMO you are right and we should use more sane/readable names like 'vorbis' and 'dirac'. (But not stuff like "ISO/ITU 14496-3" which is even less readable)
I like "vorbis" and "dirac" too.
I'll second that as well.
Opposed. The only reasons for using something "fourcc"-like at all are
i second your opposal also things like "h.264" where proposed, while thats neither exactly what the standard is called ("H.264") nor whats used anywhere else AFAIK: (h264,avc) another thing which hasnt been mentioned? is that the fourcc is in some cases used to detect needed bug workarounds, iam not sure if thats important enough for us to care about ... then theres the remuxing thingy foobar->nut->foobar some random ideas (dunno if good or not) allow multiple codec identifers: source fourcc (what the source in case of remuxing had) long name ("Vorbis", "ITU H.264", ...) simplifed fourcc (XVID,DIVX,FFMP4->M4V; ...) and make one of these mandatory and put the other 2 in an info packet maybe [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB In the past you could go to a library and read, borrow or copy any book Today you'd get arrested for mere telling someone where the library is