Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 09:32:48AM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> writes:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:32:14AM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Another possibility is to precede each optional field with a 1-bit flag indicating its presence. The size of the containing element can then also implicitly exclude any unused fields at the end. This may of course not be desired for frequently repeated elements where the flags could be specified in a global header.
I hope you understand, a 1bit field means a 1byte field. NUT has no support for sub-byte data units except when they're appropriately padded with reserved bits.
Sounds like a deficiency.
In what respect? That is what would we gain with droping byte alignment? I think we would gain a lot of complexity primarely ;)
I thought Nut was supposed to have minimal overhead. Requiring a syntax element to use 8 bits, even if it doesn't need them is not minimal. If you're willing to sacrifice a few bits for reduced complexity, that's fine. I merely had the, apparently incorrect, impression that Nut was trying very hard to remove any unnecessary overhead, even in the text of the format specification ;-) -- Måns Rullgård mans@mansr.com