On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 02:59:09PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 06:48:34PM +0200, Oded Shimon wrote:
I'm hating that there is so much controversy over such a.. cosmetic issue :/
this is not a cosmetic issue, you guys want restrictions which make no sense and which restrict actually usefull and needed cases
heres what i have in my nut fork on my disk: (note, there are no info streams)
Rules for realtime streams:
If a info packet X is transmitted anywhere then an info packet with the same chapter and stream_id MUST be placed so that there is never a mainheader and following frame covered by the info packet without the info packet inbetween example: M(mainheader) F(frame covered by infoPacket) f(other frame) I(info) M f f M f I f F F M I F F M I F F f f M f f M as a special exception very large and unimportant info packets can be transmitted less often
If 2 info packets have the same chapter_id and stream_id then the earlier MUST be ignored (the last info packet is the most correct, this allows updating or correcting info)
Rules for non realtime streams:
2 info packets with the same chapter_id and stream_id MUST be identical
Every info packet which is stored anywhere in the file MUST also be stored after every mainheader-streamheader set
This looks good to me. I'm officially walking out of this convo (I never cared strongly about any of this anyway), if you and Rich agree on some spec, whatever it may be, commit it and I'll be happy... - ods15