On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:13:09PM +0200, Ivo wrote:
On Thursday 01 June 2006 12:07, Oded Shimon wrote:
Nag no. 2. Be warned, when SVN comes up I'll commit both these patches. (unless someone complains now..)
I re-read the previous discussion on fourcc's and I don't want to restart it or anything if the main nut devs agree on sticking to four bytes, but what is the reason for not using a wider field? I agree that all sorts of implementation specific names should be avoided, but I always found fourcc's rather limited. Examples are 'drac' and 'vrbs' where 'dirac' and 'vorbis' are a lot clearer.
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)
Plus:
+4,"mp2 " MP3 +4,"mp3 " MP2
:-)
Also:
+ identification for the codec, must comply to fourcc.txt
I would write "MUST comply" to emphasize that non-complying strings should be rejected by the muxer.
Both fixed in local patch. - ods15