On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:31:04AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 04:06:22PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 07:47:49PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
personally i would simply include the forward ptr, so the all zero case would naturally be gone, if the others are against this then we must either use a
Is there an all-zero case? As far as I can tell, there's no NUT packet that's valid as all zeros, except possibly the very first syncpoint/header pair in the file.
maybe, but having all zero packets with always matching checksum is risky, we will have to check that no change we do might lead to legal all zero packets, and its also more tricky on the demuxer side (search for a packet with matchig checksum vs. search for a packet we can parse with no errors and which has a matching checksum)
Fine, IMO it's ok to include forward pointer, but what about syncpoints? Do we really want to add another byte to them? :(
a compromise would be a flag in the main header for that, so as long as we havnt added any fields to syncpoints there wont be a forward ptr ... but personally i probably would simply unconditionally add the forward ptr
Well, I had another idea: having two separate startcodes for syncpoints, one with extensibility and the other with minimal size. However, somehow I doubt it's worth the added complexity in the demuxer to support such nonsense.. Rich