[nut]: r609 - docs/nutissues.txt
Author: michael Date: Tue Feb 12 13:54:02 2008 New Revision: 609 Log: 3rd option Modified: docs/nutissues.txt Modified: docs/nutissues.txt ============================================================================== --- docs/nutissues.txt (original) +++ docs/nutissues.txt Tue Feb 12 13:54:02 2008 @@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ How do we identify the sample format A. fourcc B. extradata +C. New field in the stream header Issue pcm-interleaving @@ -160,3 +161,4 @@ How do we identify the interleaving A. fourcc B. extradata +C. New field in the stream header
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 01:54:03PM +0100, michael wrote:
Author: michael Date: Tue Feb 12 13:54:02 2008 New Revision: 609
Log: 3rd option
Modified: docs/nutissues.txt
Modified: docs/nutissues.txt ============================================================================== --- docs/nutissues.txt (original) +++ docs/nutissues.txt Tue Feb 12 13:54:02 2008 @@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ How do we identify the sample format
A. fourcc B. extradata +C. New field in the stream header
Issue pcm-interleaving @@ -160,3 +161,4 @@ How do we identify the interleaving
A. fourcc B. extradata +C. New field in the stream header
Michael, would you please stop this unprofessional creation of issues? The topic was discussed thoroughly on the list somewhere between 2 and 4 years ago and it was concluded that a stream header field that just applies to a single format (raw pcm) does not belong in the generic stream header. Extradata or the format identifier (fourcc) is the place for format-specific information. It's not my intent to quiet dissent but rather to avert jumping back in time by 3 years or so on issues that were already treated thoroughly at the time! Rich
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 01:13:11PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 01:54:03PM +0100, michael wrote:
Author: michael Date: Tue Feb 12 13:54:02 2008 New Revision: 609
Log: 3rd option
Modified: docs/nutissues.txt
Modified: docs/nutissues.txt ============================================================================== --- docs/nutissues.txt (original) +++ docs/nutissues.txt Tue Feb 12 13:54:02 2008 @@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ How do we identify the sample format
A. fourcc B. extradata +C. New field in the stream header
Issue pcm-interleaving @@ -160,3 +161,4 @@ How do we identify the interleaving
A. fourcc B. extradata +C. New field in the stream header
Michael, would you please stop this unprofessional creation of issues? The topic was discussed thoroughly on the list somewhere between 2 and 4 years ago and it was concluded that a stream header field that just applies to a single format (raw pcm) does not belong in the generic stream header. Extradata or the format identifier (fourcc) is the place for format-specific information. It's not my intent to quiet dissent but rather to avert jumping back in time by 3 years or so on issues that were already treated thoroughly at the time!
Iam listing all issues which have not been solved and all possble solutions. You just asked today or yesterday if mpeg had some document about the reasoning behind some of their decissions. It would be unprofessional if id simply not list a possible solution because we maybe decided 2-4 years ago that its not a good choice. And yes i agree that things just needed for raw dont belong in the stream header. And IIRC the consensus 2-4 years ago was to use the fourcc though i dont remember all the reasoning anymore but we had a pretty good argument, i just dont remember it :) Now you seem you prefer extradata, after alban suggested it, this is as close to the consensus 3 years ago as using the stream header. Besides its one of thee things which would be a nightmare to implement in practice and would need tons of special case. If(raw){ extract all the data out of extradata make extradata disapear somehow as its nut specific and not the codec private area }else{ } [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct awnser.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 07:55:49PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Iam listing all issues which have not been solved and all possble solutions. You just asked today or yesterday if mpeg had some document about the reasoning behind some of their decissions.
It would be unprofessional if id simply not list a possible solution because we maybe decided 2-4 years ago that its not a good choice.
OK.
And yes i agree that things just needed for raw dont belong in the stream header. And IIRC the consensus 2-4 years ago was to use the fourcc though i dont remember all the reasoning anymore but we had a pretty good argument, i just dont remember it :)
OK.
Now you seem you prefer extradata, after alban suggested it, this is as close to the consensus 3 years ago as using the stream header. Besides its one of thee things which would be a nightmare to implement in practice and would need tons of special case.
I agree it has some major practical issues, such as the fact that no existing PCM "decoder" is prepared to handle extradata. I'm totally happy with the fourcc approach too; I don't have much preference one way or the other here.
If(raw){ extract all the data out of extradata make extradata disapear somehow as its nut specific and not the codec private area }else{ }
Yes.... Rich
participants (3)
-
michael -
Michael Niedermayer -
Rich Felker