Proposal: An extension to rules all others

Proposal: An extension to rules all others

Copyright Notice
None.  Public Domain.

Abstract
Extension flamewars surrounding media formats inside Ogg
containers
are a pain in the behind, cause problems in the adoption of
said
formats, and confuse users.  This modest proposal directed
at the
maintainers of Vorbis, Theora, Speex and FLAC will suggest a
solution
to solve these issues (and others).

1. Introduction
According to Lore, there in ancient days was Ogg, a
container for all
kinds of media formats, but for years to come, Ogg had only
one
companion, a music box known as Vorbis.  Together, the two
tried to
battle the evil kingdom of MP3, and though not successful,
songs were
composed of Ogg and Vorbis feats.  However, misunderstanding
arouse,
and the two became associated as one entity: the OGG.

Now, fast-forward to the present.  The "OGG"
misconception states that
any file with the .ogg extension is "OGG", which
is some kind of
nerds-only format for music, or an MP3-wannabe.

Now, we of Xiph know this is bullshit, but this kind of
mentality has
spread so widely that it's hurting the Ogg project as a
whole, and its
family of formats.

2. The Problems Caused by the OGG disease
When one speaks with the average computer user, the one that
may
occasionally check Slashdot (or God forbid, Digg), s/he will
tell you
in the world of Open Source (or FOSS) there are two formats
for audio:
OGG and FLAC.  More or less, s/he has a basic idea of what
OGG is:
it's some kind of audio format like MP3, whose name sounds
like
caveman speech, and nobody uses.  S/he probably likes FLAC,
though.
The FLAC fad is yet to come, but its day seems to draw near.

There isn't one problem here; there's several.  The person
described
above may be a blogger, but he has no idea what Speex is. 
The person
above may have an iPod, and s/he won't care much for any
audio format
other than MP3.  S/he won't bother to look for a hardware
player with
support for other audio formats, and more importantly, s/he
won't even
bother consider nagging Apple about adding support for other
formats.
If this person has ever gone to Wikipedia, s/he may have
come across
media files with an .ogg extension, but s/he has no idea why
it's
labeled as video.  "Isn't OGG supposed to be that
nerds-only music
format?  What's this all about?"

This person will try to make the video work, following the
useful
instructions on Wikipedia Media Help page to install illi's
codecs,
and so on.  The problem is when s/he tries to play it on any
MS
Windows player that isn't VLC or RealPlayer.  S/he'll be
royaly
screwed.  What with the majority of the few programs that
recognize
the .ogg extension assuming it's Vorbis.

At this point, the person will simply give up.  The video
wasn't that
important to being with.

However, the person may think, "Hey, other people will
have the same
problem too", so s/he will go ahead and complain to
Wikipedia about
it.  Now make that several people a week, and not only in
Wikipedia,
but anywhere else hosting Theora videos.  And remember that
it's only
the peopler that care.  Like 1% of the Internet population,
maybe
less.  Nobody else cares.

I think there's a lack of consistency and correctness in how
the
different developers in Xiph are doing things.  We need some
unity if
we are ever to take on the world.  Not that I'm saying I'm
the
Messiah, and I have the answer for everything, or that I
know of all
the problems there are (or not).  But on this issue,
however, I hope
to have your full attention, gentlemen.

3. One extension to rule them all
This title is misleading, because it's not possible to have
one single
extension to fix the problems described above.  Especially,
if one
considers this proposal aims for backward AND forward
compatibility.

The proposal isn't perfect, but in my opinion it's a fine
step towards
solving some of the problems plaging the projects
surrounding Ogg.

I propose that each project (Vorbis, Speex, etc.) states in
its
specification two file extensions, and those two extensions
are to be
the only ones allowed for that given format.  Implementators
are
supposed to support both extensions.  Content creators are
supposed to
choose one of them according to whatever criteria they care
about.

Are there arguments against this?  Of course there are.

One might say that .avi is always .avi even though it might
be MPEG 1,
XviD, DivX, or anything else.  Yet, you forget that .avi is
ALWAYS for
video, so most software won't complain when they see an .avi
file
(except for WMP that complains for everything).  The worst
that may
happen is for the software to ask the user for the
appropriate codecs.
 This doesn't happen with .ogg, though, because the Ogg
container
might be used for so many different purposes that programs
don't have
an uniform way of dealing with .ogg.

Matroska, for instance, specifies .mkv for
video/video+audio, and .mka
for audio.  This may not be the greatest approach ever, but
it works
in real life, and that's what we should aim for.

And yet, there's further opposition?  Some may say
"extensions don't
matter", but they forget this is a computer world ruled
by MS Windows,
where the average user is not smart enough to know what's
wrong when
the video or audio file s/he downloaded won't work. 
Extensions are
needed.  Anyone ever saw the UNIX "file" command
trying to guess what
type a file is?  Extensions are needed.

Now, assuming you guys dig what I say, there's another
problem.
Choose a new extension for your project, say .vorbis for
Vorbis and we
all know what happens.  Existing software will stop playing
older
Vorbis streams using the .ogg extension.  The solution as I
mentioned
above is to allow two extensions, no more, nor less.

Example: .ogg as default, .vorbis as secondary.

OK, but that's for Vorbis.  Why should FLAC or Speex care? 
Because of
consistency.  If we want to move Ogg away from the
misunderstanding
that it's Vorbis only (the "OGG"), we have to
allow .ogg to be used on
FLAC and Speex files.  And because of correctness.  If we
want unity
between our projects, we have to allow .ogg to be used on
FLAC and
Speex files.

So, this is what I suggest:
Vorbis: .ogg & .vorbis
Theora: .ogg & .theora (or .video as I've seen suggested
several times)
FLAC: .ogg & .flac (yes, I'm fully aware that FLAC can
exist without
Ogg, but it's about unity)
Speex: .ogg & .spx
OggPCM: .ogg & .oggpcm
OggUVS: .ogg & .ogguvs

For mixed content of other kinds, like Writ, or crazy
combinations of
the above, or external codecs (MPEG 4, whatever), one has
accept the
default .ogg only, because it's not possible to state an
extension for
every possible use of Ogg.  The idea is to allow dual
extension on the
most important projects under Xiph.

Notice that most of the suggested extensions are outside 8.3
limitations.  It's 2007; we do not need to worry about this
anymore.

That list is a suggestion, and this you are reading is a
proposal.
It's up for each maintainer to decide if it's viable, or
not, but I
ask you to consider it.

This proposal isn't only philosophical.  It's about making
life easier
for end-users and to tell software that if it supports
Speex, then it
needs to look in the current directory for both .ogg and
.spx files as
source for Speex streams.

Extensions are meaningless, and .avi sure as hell isn't just
"Video
for Windows", so let's make it clear what extensions
are allowed for
the different projects under Xiph, even if it's crazy talk.

4. More Solutions
Ralph Giles has been studying the possibility of adding a
"disposition-type" field on the MIME
application/ogg.  This is an
approach taken by the RSS project, and I believe it's
another step in
the right direction.  But it's a completely different
debate, though
I'm mentioning it, because this and the solution described
in this
proposal should both be used.  Operating Systems don't care
about MIME
types, but care about extensions.  On the other hand, HTTP
servers
don't care as much about extensions, but care a lot about
MIME types.

The RSS project is considering using disposition-type with
Dublin Core
attributes like "moving-pictures",
"sound" and "mixed".  This syntax
may not be most appropriate for Ogg streams, but the idea
behind it is
good.  Let's take it in consideration.

Example: application/ogg; disposition-type=sound

One more solution to the problem of consistency may be the
use of the
name "Ogg family" when referring to the media
formats that use Ogg
containers.  I think it will help fortify the ties between
the
different projects under Xiph, and make easier my job, which
is to
promote those projects.  Ogg family.

5. In Conclusion
Hi, my name is Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves.  I'm new to Xiph.Org,
and mostly
unknown.  My project is called SpreadOgg.  It's an attempt
at doing
whatever it's needed to promote the media formats under
Xiph.Org.

It was hard for me to write this proposal.  Very hard. 
Because it
forces change, and change is never welcomed.  Because it's
bold, and
boldness tends to attract enmity.  Because it's probably
going to be
ignored.  And because it may add more complexity to an issue
that is
already complex.

But in the end, I thought this issue was important, and here
we are.
From what I've heard, whole flame wars regarding extensions
have
happened before, and they led to nothing.  Why not end this
issue once
and for all, and go on with more important matters?

This message is public and is made available in ogg-dev,
vorbis-dev,
flac-dev, speex-dev, and theora-dev mailing lists.  Although
it's
directed at the maintainers of these projects, casual
readers of the
mailing lists may discuss this proposal if they wish, but
please make
sure the contribution is significant and/or useful.  More
ranting is
pretty much unnecessary.

Que seja o que Deus quiser.

(Ah... followups to ogg-dev...)

(I've got a couple of tiny comments but they're not
important,
they do however tie into my main point at the bottom.)

Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
> Proposal: An extension to rules all others
> 
> Copyright Notice
> None.  Public Domain.
> 
> There isn't one problem here; there's several.  The
person described
> above may be a blogger, but he has no idea what Speex
is.  The person

Rather kind to ascribe technological competence simply
because the
person is a blogger...

> above may have an iPod, and s/he won't care much for
any audio format
> other than MP3.  S/he won't bother to look for a
hardware player with
> support for other audio formats, and more importantly,
s/he won't even
> bother consider nagging Apple about adding support for
other formats.

There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent on
preventing uptake
of other formats.

<snip explanation of the problems caused by one extension
combined
with poor support for shared extensions>

> I propose that each project (Vorbis, Speex, etc.)
states in its
> specification two file extensions, and those two
extensions are to be
> the only ones allowed for that given format. 
Implementators are
> supposed to support both extensions.  Content creators
are supposed to
> choose one of them according to whatever criteria they
care about.
> 

Part of the problem you describe is in implementation, so I
suspect
that you can't really rely on implementors.

> Are there arguments against this?  Of course there
are.
> 
> One might say that .avi is always .avi even though it
might be MPEG 1,
> XviD, DivX, or anything else.  Yet, you forget that
.avi is ALWAYS for
> video, so most software won't complain when they see an
.avi file
> (except for WMP that complains for everything).  The
worst that may
> happen is for the software to ask the user for the
appropriate codecs.
> This doesn't happen with .ogg, though, because the Ogg
container
> might be used for so many different purposes that
programs don't have
> an uniform way of dealing with .ogg.
> 
> Matroska, for instance, specifies .mkv for
video/video+audio, and .mka
> for audio.  This may not be the greatest approach ever,
but it works
> in real life, and that's what we should aim for.
> 

See <http://xiph.org/minutes/2006/10/200610_meeting.txt>
, there doesn't
really seem to be any resistance to doing something, the
question is
really what.

<Okay, next bit is long, leaving it in for context>
> And yet, there's further opposition?  Some may say
"extensions don't
> matter", but they forget this is a computer world
ruled by MS Windows,
> where the average user is not smart enough to know
what's wrong when
> the video or audio file s/he downloaded won't work. 
Extensions are
> needed.  Anyone ever saw the UNIX "file"
command trying to guess what
> type a file is?  Extensions are needed.
> 
> Now, assuming you guys dig what I say, there's another
problem.
> Choose a new extension for your project, say .vorbis
for Vorbis and we
> all know what happens.  Existing software will stop
playing older
> Vorbis streams using the .ogg extension.  The solution
as I mentioned
> above is to allow two extensions, no more, nor less.
> 
> Example: .ogg as default, .vorbis as secondary.
> 
> OK, but that's for Vorbis.  Why should FLAC or Speex
care?  Because of
> consistency.  If we want to move Ogg away from the
misunderstanding
> that it's Vorbis only (the "OGG"), we have to
allow .ogg to be used on
> FLAC and Speex files.  And because of correctness.  If
we want unity
> between our projects, we have to allow .ogg to be used
on FLAC and
> Speex files.
> 
> So, this is what I suggest:
> Vorbis: .ogg & .vorbis
> Theora: .ogg & .theora (or .video as I've seen
suggested several times)
> FLAC: .ogg & .flac (yes, I'm fully aware that FLAC
can exist without
> Ogg, but it's about unity)
> Speex: .ogg & .spx
> OggPCM: .ogg & .oggpcm
> OggUVS: .ogg & .ogguvs
> 
> For mixed content of other kinds, like Writ, or crazy
combinations of
> the above, or external codecs (MPEG 4, whatever), one
has accept the
> default .ogg only, because it's not possible to state
an extension for
> every possible use of Ogg.  The idea is to allow dual
extension on the
> most important projects under Xiph.
> 
> Notice that most of the suggested extensions are
outside 8.3
> limitations.  It's 2007; we do not need to worry about
this anymore.
> 
> That list is a suggestion, and this you are reading is
a proposal.
> It's up for each maintainer to decide if it's viable,
or not, but I
> ask you to consider it.
> 
> This proposal isn't only philosophical.  It's about
making life easier
> for end-users and to tell software that if it supports
Speex, then it
> needs to look in the current directory for both .ogg
and .spx files as
> source for Speex streams.
> 
> Extensions are meaningless, and .avi sure as hell isn't
just "Video
> for Windows", so let's make it clear what
extensions are allowed for
> the different projects under Xiph, even if it's crazy
talk.
> 

First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming
out shortly,
does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's
predecessors?
It may be worth finding out.  Do Macs care?  I don't believe
Linux
does, so it's Windows that's the problem (and it is a big
problem,
market share and all that), but Windows is Windows Media
Player, so
if that has caught up with the rest of the world there's
less need to
worry.

Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end users are
less
computer literate (yes more people can type, but a
decreasing
proportion understand how their computers work, maybe I
should say
the quality of copmuter literacy is decreasing).  They don't
care
about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods), what they
do
care about is branding.  I immediately thought about being
flippant
and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only and .avi
for
Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem.  But, that
would
make Xiph the bad guys...

However there's something to this idea; it recognises the
recognition
that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to load
someone's iPod
for them I suspect there may be quite a few people using
iPods
thinking that mp3 is aac).  So what about:
.music (Vorbis)
.video (Theora + audio)
.voice (Speex)
.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?

I really am serious.  They're unused (AFAIK), they tell you
about
content.  If people start trying to call other things .music
(or
similar), then they'll run into any extension problems, and
if
MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't working
complaining they are more likely to try and do something
about that
than they have been to act on Ogg.

The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding, though I
think this
is more important for content publishers than consumers.

-- 
imalone
_______________________________________________
Flac-dev mailing list
Flac-devxiph.org
http:
//lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Hopefully this doesn't spawn another flame war...

These extensions seem pretty presumptuous.
>.music (Vorbis)
>.video (Theora + audio)
>.voice (Speex)
>.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
>.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?

What happens when a new audio/video codec is added to the
mix? A new extension?

What would be the extension for a chained file that contains
audio-only and
A/V segments? (My _favorite_ corner case in the ogg format.
:| )


What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo
model?
.oga (Vorbis, Speex)
.ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)

Why do we need a new extension for FLAC?

I understand the desire to use seperate extensions to
differentiate audio-only
from video files. Why do we need furthur differentiation
based on codec?
Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if
they really need to
determine which codec it contains. If people really want to
use different
applications for each codec then let them deal with the
headaches of making
that happen. Don't burden the masses with a ton of
extensions just to appease
a select few.

Proliferation of a bunch of new extensions will only confuse
users in my
opinion.

Aaron

On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:23:21PM +0000, Ivo Emanuel
Gon??alves wrote:
> On 1/15/07, Ian Malone <ibmalonegmail.com> wrote:
> >There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent
on preventing uptake
> >of other formats.
> 
> I've been thinking about that.  Considering Apple is an
American
> company, can't they be liable for an anti-trust case
against other
> formats?  They do have an interest in keeping little
competition in
> AAC'a territory.
> 
> >First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS
coming out shortly,
> >does anyone know if it is any more sensible than
it's predecessors?
> 
> I've not heard of anything in that regard.  Actually,
I'm not sure it
> would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new version
of DOS.
> Although, I did hear something about a new completely
different
> Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that would
be affected by
> 8.3 limits.
> 
> >Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end
users are less
> >computer literate (yes more people can type, but a
decreasing
> >proportion understand how their computers work,
maybe I should say
> >the quality of computer literacy is decreasing). 
They don't care
> >about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods),
what they do
> >care about is branding.  I immediately thought
about being flippant
> >and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only
and .avi for
> >Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem. 
But, that would
> >make Xiph the bad guys...
> >
> >However there's something to this idea; it
recognises the recognition
> >that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to
load someone's iPod
> >for them I suspect there may be quite a few people
using iPods
> >thinking that mp3 is aac).  So what about:
> >.music (Vorbis)
> >.video (Theora + audio)
> >.voice (Speex)
> >.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
> >.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
> >
> >I really am serious.  They're unused (AFAIK), they
tell you about
> >content.  If people start trying to call other
things .music (or
> >similar), then they'll run into any extension
problems, and if
> >MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't
working
> >complaining they are more likely to try and do
something about that
> >than they have been to act on Ogg.
> >
> >The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding,
though I think this
> >is more important for content publishers than
consumers.
> 
> Yes!  Your extensions list is actually more sensible
than mine.  This
> is aggresive marketing!  And it can work.  As long as
software
> developers are warned to support both new and legacy
extensions, and
> content developers encouraged to use the new
extensions, it might just
> work.  Pretty much, it's still a dual extension
proposal, but with
> foresight of promotion and locking illiterate users to
think .music is
> actually music, and .video is actually video, and
nothing else.
> 
> And I'm sure audiophiles will be happy with
.music-perfect.
> 
> What do others think?  Monty, Josh, Ralph, Jean-Marc,
Mike?  Do any of
> you agree on this proposal?
> 
> The intent to get rid of extension flamewars due to
exclusive use
> of.ogg is still here.  Other priorities at work here
are promotion and
> clear confusion from the part of users.
> 
> -Ivo
> 
> P.S: There's still the disposition-type proposal to
discuss.  Should
> we schedule a Monthly Meeting to discuss this and the
above?
> _______________________________________________
> xiph-rtp mailing list
> xiph-rtpxiph.org
> http:
//lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
_______________________________________________
Flac-dev mailing list
Flac-devxiph.org
http:
//lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

I agree with Aaron.

Also consider that the extensions and an associated mimetype
will need
to be ratified by the IETF to become "standard".
They would never
agree to these extensions since they are too broad.

And I like ".oga" and ".ogv" - they are
simple for the user to
understand which application to try and throw at it.

Silvia.

On 1/17/07, Aaron Colwell <acolwellreal.com> wrote:
> Hopefully this doesn't spawn another flame war...
>
> These extensions seem pretty presumptuous.
> >.music (Vorbis)
> >.video (Theora + audio)
> >.voice (Speex)
> >.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
> >.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
>
> What happens when a new audio/video codec is added to
the mix? A new extension?
>
> What would be the extension for a chained file that
contains audio-only and
> A/V segments? (My _favorite_ corner case in the ogg
format. :| )
>
>
> What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows
Media/RealVideo model?
> .oga (Vorbis, Speex)
> .ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin,
etc)
>
> Why do we need a new extension for FLAC?
>
> I understand the desire to use seperate extensions to
differentiate audio-only
> from video files. Why do we need furthur
differentiation based on codec?
> Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file
if they really need to
> determine which codec it contains. If people really
want to use different
> applications for each codec then let them deal with the
headaches of making
> that happen. Don't burden the masses with a ton of
extensions just to appease
> a select few.
>
> Proliferation of a bunch of new extensions will only
confuse users in my
> opinion.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:23:21PM +0000, Ivo Emanuel
Gon??alves wrote:
> > On 1/15/07, Ian Malone <ibmalonegmail.com> wrote:
> > >There is a point of view that Apple is quite
bent on preventing uptake
> > >of other formats.
> >
> > I've been thinking about that.  Considering Apple
is an American
> > company, can't they be liable for an anti-trust
case against other
> > formats?  They do have an interest in keeping
little competition in
> > AAC'a territory.
> >
> > >First, there is apparently a new version of MS
DOS coming out shortly,
> > >does anyone know if it is any more sensible
than it's predecessors?
> >
> > I've not heard of anything in that regard. 
Actually, I'm not sure it
> > would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new
version of DOS.
> > Although, I did hear something about a new
completely different
> > Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that
would be affected by
> > 8.3 limits.
> >
> > >Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that
end users are less
> > >computer literate (yes more people can type,
but a decreasing
> > >proportion understand how their computers
work, maybe I should say
> > >the quality of computer literacy is
decreasing).  They don't care
> > >about technologies (or people wouldn't use
iPods), what they do
> > >care about is branding.  I immediately thought
about being flippant
> > >and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio
only and .avi for
> > >Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's
problem.  But, that would
> > >make Xiph the bad guys...
> > >
> > >However there's something to this idea; it
recognises the recognition
> > >that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had
to load someone's iPod
> > >for them I suspect there may be quite a few
people using iPods
> > >thinking that mp3 is aac).  So what about:
> > >.music (Vorbis)
> > >.video (Theora + audio)
> > >.voice (Speex)
> > >.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC &
PCM)
> > >.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs +
audio)?
> > >
> > >I really am serious.  They're unused (AFAIK),
they tell you about
> > >content.  If people start trying to call other
things .music (or
> > >similar), then they'll run into any extension
problems, and if
> > >MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc.
isn't working
> > >complaining they are more likely to try and do
something about that
> > >than they have been to act on Ogg.
> > >
> > >The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding,
though I think this
> > >is more important for content publishers than
consumers.
> >
> > Yes!  Your extensions list is actually more
sensible than mine.  This
> > is aggresive marketing!  And it can work.  As long
as software
> > developers are warned to support both new and
legacy extensions, and
> > content developers encouraged to use the new
extensions, it might just
> > work.  Pretty much, it's still a dual extension
proposal, but with
> > foresight of promotion and locking illiterate
users to think .music is
> > actually music, and .video is actually video, and
nothing else.
> >
> > And I'm sure audiophiles will be happy with
.music-perfect.
> >
> > What do others think?  Monty, Josh, Ralph,
Jean-Marc, Mike?  Do any of
> > you agree on this proposal?
> >
> > The intent to get rid of extension flamewars due
to exclusive use
> > of.ogg is still here.  Other priorities at work
here are promotion and
> > clear confusion from the part of users.
> >
> > -Ivo
> >
> > P.S: There's still the disposition-type proposal
to discuss.  Should
> > we schedule a Monthly Meeting to discuss this and
the above?
> > _______________________________________________
> > xiph-rtp mailing list
> > xiph-rtpxiph.org
> > http:
//lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
> _______________________________________________
> xiph-rtp mailing list
> xiph-rtpxiph.org
> http:
//lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
>
_______________________________________________
Flac-dev mailing list
Flac-devxiph.org
http:
//lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

An addition of the MIME type to the first Ogg page doesn't
make much
sense, since that Ogg page already belongs to one of the
logical
bitstreams in the stream.

We had a long discussion about how to do this right when
developing
the Annodex format
(h
ttp://annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-annodex-02.txt),
which has been
built to provide this functionality and others.

In the end, we defined what is now know as
"skeleton"
(http://wi
ki.xiph.org/index.php/Ogg_Skeleton) and as an
additional
logical bitstream at the beginning of an Ogg file that
contains
information o the other logical bitstreams inside the Ogg
file.

This is the only way to provide this information without
breaking
existing specifications.

However, it requires that Ogg parsing software be adapted to
also
parse Skeleton.

Some of the software has already been adapted for it -
others hasn't.

Silvia.

On 1/17/07, Tor-Einar Jarnbjo <tor-einarjarnbjo.name> wrote:
> Aaron Colwell schrieb:
>
> > Media applications are able to deeply inspect the
file if they really
> > need to
> > determine which codec it contains.
> >
> In case of Ogg, the application is unfortunately only
able to determine
> which codec(s) the Ogg file contains if detailed
knowledge about the
> codecs is known already by the Ogg parser. I think I
already suggested
> to e.g. add the stream's MIME type to the first Ogg
page to make it
> easier for players to cope with new codecs embedded in
an Ogg file.
>
> Tor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Vorbis-dev mailing list
> Vorbis-devxiph.org
> htt
p://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Flac-dev mailing list
Flac-devxiph.org
http:
//lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev