[Flac-dev] Re: [xiph-rtp] Re: [Vorbis-dev] Proposal: An extension to rules all others

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

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 <acolwell at real.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 <ibmalone at gmail.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-rtp at xiph.org
> > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
> _______________________________________________
> xiph-rtp mailing list
> xiph-rtp at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
>