ogg at illiminable.com
Wed Nov 9 00:51:51 PST 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arc" <arc at Xiph.org>
To: <ogg-dev at Xiph.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ogg-dev] OggYUV
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:14:08PM +0800, illiminable wrote:
>> >I agree, which is why I wrote the OggPCM draft when we already have
>> >formats are not difficult to design or implement, and I think the added
>> >efficiency and simplicity will more than make up for it.
>> Which i looked at... and i'm wondering why on earth it has a sync code in
>> the packet... that's the whole point of putting it in a container.
> Um, data packets consist of a 32-bit header followed by PCM data. Where
> did you
> get the idea that "sync" data was in the packet?
That's what the first 32 bits of "header" are.
> I don't understand why a compromise is needed, as you already said that
> not going to use OggStream in your DirectShow filters, insisting on
> to re-invent the wheel. I don't care either way, since while I understand
That doesn't mean that the files won't ever end up, on a windows machine,
and how is what you are doing not re-inventing the wheel.
> As I said in the last email on this subject, if at some point you (or some
> Windows developer) decides that a generic Ogg DirectShow filter is
There already is a generic filter.
> KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid. This is a raw data format. It's value to
> everyone is primarily how simple it is to implement.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Yes... it's a raw data format... and
look at the header you've given it.
Anyway... carry on. I'll just do my own thing.
More information about the ogg-dev