On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 03:25:54AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 08:54:26PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 03:22:56PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 12:06:37PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
- It's not clear whether limits like max_distance and max_pts_difference take effect when the difference is > the limit, or when the difference is >= the limit. This must be specified one way or the other, and should be consistent between all the limits of this sort for the sake of simplicity.
agree
OK. Any preference which way? I can make a patch addressing these issues if you like but it won't be for a couple days.
Patch attached. Hopefully the wording is sufficiently precise without being too pedantic. In particular I updated max_distance to refer to startcodes rather than syncpoints since otherwise it is incorrect in the presence of duplicated headers (it was impossible to satisfy...)
yeah, the wording is a little harder to understand (actually i reminds me of h.264 where later drafts had more and more precisse wording and where less and less understandable, the end result was so complex that it often needs to be read 3-4 times before you figure out what is acually meant from a high level point of view
but here i think your version is better then what is in cvs ATM ...
Committed. Spec can use a cleaning up in regards to understandiblity anyway. - ods15