Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> writes:
Attached is my attempts so far at documenting NUT in English as opposed to Lingua Dei Codicis. :) I'm told that, given good documentation on NUT, Måns is possibly willing to update the lavf implementation. The intent of this document is not to replace the formal spec that already exists, but rather for it to be developed into the "informative" (as opposed to normative) parts of the spec, particularly what one might call a "Usage" section. Rationale and Examples might be other non-normative sections we should consider writing.
So far my writing has been somewhat disorganized. I think it could make a much better presentation if it used more itemized lists, tables, etc. Actually I'd be very happy if other people want to work on improving this; what I've set out is just the groundwork I think.
Comments? Revisions? Frames? (Pardon my Engrish. :) Ideas for merging this into a nice specification document?
Are you people completely nuts? That text would do fine as a magazine article about a new file format. It tells the reader nothing whatsoever of use for writing a demuxer, let alone a muxer. What I'm asking for is a NORMATIVE description of the MEANING of each syntax element. There is some hint at such a section in the so-called spec. This should be expanded considerably. Also needed is a detailed explanation of the interactions between different syntax elements, particularly frame_code and timestamp related things. Some notes on rationale are welcome too, but not strictly necessary. Now you may as well forget all this anyway. Without a defined way of determining the codec for a stream, the format is useless. As you have previously refused to do anything about this, I'm not pursuing it further. -- Måns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com