On Wednesday 06 February 2008 11:11:50 Luca Barbato wrote:
Rich Felker wrote:
I think we need a reality check here, as NUT is a FROZEN spec.
Ok
This whole broadcast issue has brought up a lot of "new requirements" with no legitimate argument for how they fulfill any need that NUT does not already meet. "Because MPEG does it" is NOT A REASON!!
the matter is reversed: MPEG works that way for a reason, although the targets aimed at by NUT and MPEG may be different and consequently the solutions chosen don't necessarily need to be the same. Surely NUT will never be used by DTV broadcasters, so multi-program delivery may not be an issue to consider, but -IMO- adding a lot of requisites to the stream layer for the purpose of delivering NUT muxes will not make the adoption of NUT easier. Not that I care too much: I intend to use it only on files and I don't work in the MM field, so...
We could make it an addendum, have the broadcast stuff kept in compatible mode and just first help me converting the current nut in rfc (I don't have much time lately so help IS needed) and start pushing it there.
addendums, extension and spec specializations are the recipe for disaster, whatever direction NUT chooses. A unified NUT spec encompassing *from the very start* everything needed is the only sane way to proceed, IMO