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.
OK then. New rough draft, please correct me in cases where I am blantantly false/stupid:
+4,"h263" H.263 5,"h.263" +4,"mp4v" MPEG-4 Part 2 6,"mpeg-4" +4,"h264" MPEG-4 Part 10/H.264 5,"h.264" +4,"snow" Snow 4,"snow" +4,"drac" Dirac/Schroedinger 6,"dirac" +4,"vc1 " VC-1 4,"vc-1"
+Audio +4,"vrbs" Xiph.org Vorbis 6,"vorbis" +4,"mp2 " MP2 3,"mp2" +4,"mp3 " MP3 3,"mp3" +4,"ac3 " AC3 3,"ac3" +4,"aac " AAC/MPEG-4 Part 3 3,"aac" +4,"eac3" EAC3 4,"eac3" +4,"flac" Flac 4,"flac"
in conclusion: 5,"h.263" 6,"mpeg-4" 5,"h.264" 4,"snow" 6,"dirac" 4,"vc-1" 6,"vorbis" 3,"mp2" 3,"mp3" 3,"ac3" 3,"aac" 4,"eac3" 4,"flac" - ods15