[ogg-dev] Re: [Vorbis-dev] "Any who has ever written an Ogg (de)muxer curses it's name frequently" (sic)

[Jaakko Manninen]

How does 'xiphmont' scale?

Jak

On 2/28/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <justivo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote:
> > specification you mean? Yes, those can go as appendicies to the vorbis
> > spec, along with the ogg and rtp embeddings.
>
> That seems a reasonable approach.
>
> > Are you talking about tobias' directshow filters? They've not been
> > maintained in years, and we've been recommending illi's instead because
> > they were and seem to work better.
>
> What I gathered about OGM was from the Wp article on it.  It says, OGM
> is a hack of Ogg to get other codecs (MPEG 4, etc.) inside.
>
> > We've got roadmaps a plenty. What we need is people doing things. :)
>
> Word.
>
>
> On 2/28/07, Michael Smith <msmith at xiph.org> wrote:
> > But to suggest AVI is just unreasonable - AVI is more or less
> > obsolete, and for good reasons.
>
> I don't think anyone suggested AVI as a replacement for Ogg (good
> heavens!).  That guy on Slashdot was making a comparison between them
> both, in a reply to someone else.
>
> > We're not opposed, in principle, to standardising an embedding of
> > vorbis into _other_ more capable container formats. But the core
> > developers don't really use those very much - after all, they're most
> > commonly seen in use for using non-free video codecs with vorbis, so
> > we'd need a proposal from the community - brought to us, for reasoned
> > debate and discussion. Nobody's done that.
>
> I haven't looked into the proposal of the MPlayer guys yet (linked in
> a message after yours), but maybe it suffices our needs.  If not, I
> think it's better that Xiph proposes its own Vorbis hack for AVI.  I
> guess we have to take in attention Matroska and MP4 as well.
>
> On 2/28/07, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <eric at zhevny.com> wrote:
> > Where would a person wanting to be doing things find these roadmaps?
>
> Theora ToDo list on which anyone can contribute to get things done:
> http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/TheoraTodo
>
> Google Summer of Code projects:
> http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Summer_of_Code
>
> On 2/28/07, Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote:
>
> > Well, there are todo pages at wiki.xiph.org, but I meant more in the
> > community folklore sense. My point is a roadmap doesn't help much unless
> > there are people committed to making things happen. That's been the
> > problem with a lot of this stuff, and why it's been so nice to see the
> > ambisonics work happening.
>
> The situation on Ambisonics is tricky, because it depends on someone
> coding a whole API for the different Xiph projects AND Monty being
> available to apply whatever changes are need in Vorbis.
>
> > If you're one of those people, ask on irc or the mailing lists if you
> > want an orientation.
>
> For those who don't know:
> irc://irc.freenode.net
> #xiph
> #theora
> #vorbis
> ...a few more channels
>
> A list of all of our mailing lists may be found at:
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/
>
> Infodump post.
>
> On 2/28/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Official Xiph endorsement of patented codecs inside Ogg will cause
> > problems for those who accept Ogg because it doesn't contain patented
> > codecs. (Well there is xvid, but at least they call their files OGM).
>
> It's not an endorsement.  Ogg is a container.  People are free to
> throw whatever they want inside, and we should make sure that there's
> some kind of standartization for this.  After all, if Ogg can only use
> Xiph's formats, it's no better than proprietary containers.
>
> > ... I fail to see the attraction from an adoption perspective. If
> > someone is handing out oggs already then they are expecting the user
> > to have special software to play them.
>
> We dont want people to have special software.  Xiph's formats are
> supposed to be built-in on operating systems.
>
> > If the user has special
> > software it's not unreasonable to expect that software to support the
> > codecs that we offer.
>
> The argument is about compatibility between that kind of software.
> Imagine VLC and MPlayer render Ogg MPEG 4 Video differently.  They
> will end up doing the same thing that guy on Slashdot was doing: blame
> Xiph, because it didn't specify how they should interact with Ogg.
>
> > Frankly, I see being non-encumbered a primary aspect of the Xiph brand
> > identity. It would be foolish to step away from that just to remove a
> > bullet point from the list of someone who is determined to complain.
> > :)
>
> Xiph will never step away from that goal.  That's the whole point of
> why we are here.
>
> Out of curiosity, are you the same GMaxwell from
> Wikipedia/Commons/etc?  I salute you, then.  I follow your/his work
> (occasionally), and you/he are/is really active there.
>
>
>
> -Ivo
> _______________________________________________
> Vorbis-dev mailing list
> Vorbis-dev at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis-dev
>