[Vorbis-dev] Re: [ogg-dev] Peer review draft for the new media types/file extensions

Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves justivo at gmail.com
Wed Oct 3 17:17:26 PDT 2007

On 10/3/07, Ian Malone <ibmalone at gmail.com> wrote:
> This would mean that the inclusion of lyrics in a pop song
> would make it 'video'.

If they are added in such way as to make it visual, then we are out of
the domain of audio/ogg.

> You can search for song lyrics online

Yes, and that's external to Ogg.  It's player-dependant, like what Amarok does.

On 10/3/07, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The skeleton I-D is part of the Annodex specificatin at this point in
> time: http://annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-annodex-02.txt
> We should probably split that out, but it won't we much work.

Oh hey, there IS a standard outside the wiki.  So sorry.  I'll point
to it in the references.

And, if possible do split them.  Skeleton is not anymore an
Annodex-only thing.  It would be used across most of Ogg.

> You would be amazed about how many tools already support skeleton. VLC
> has support, liboggplay has support and thus the firefox extensions,
> xine has support, and Tahseen implemented support for the encoding
> tools, though I am not sure whether those have been merged into trunk
> and been released. You are right though that there is a whole pile of
> work still to be done. But if we want to move forward with the new
> formats in a sensible way, a "SHOULD" is the right way. It's not a
> "MUST", so it lets us do the transition gradually.

Read also Shane's statement which was later added to the thread.  I am
convinced.  Not that I had to be, but I guess it helps when everyone's
in agreement.  We just have to make the world aware that Skeleton is a
good thing, it's supported by a bunch of tools, and all that.

I have a question, though; while Skeleton won't be pushed for Vorbis,
do Vorbis files with Skeleton tracks break existing players/refuse to
play?  I've never tested it, and I'm curious.

> This is application/ogg we are talking about. Ogg is a container
> format in principle ready for any generic time-continuously sampled
> data, not just audio and video. I would not want to restrict us for
> the future to just audio and video.

We are not restricting to audio and video.  That's the whole point of
separating the media types.  BUT most people only deal with audio and
video, with basic Theora, Vorbis, and Speex files.  That's the
situation right now.  We want those people to use audio/ogg &
video/ogg.  We do not want them to use application/ogg.  That's for
"applications", stuff that is more complex than the basic media file.
You, yourself, explained me this.

As such, it makes no sense to say application/ogg is for generic use.
Scientific applications and the like are not generic.

> Yes, I read that and thought that  RFC3534 was wrong. base64 is used
> to encode binary data inside text containers. email and html are text
> containers. Ogg is a binary container and thus does not need to
> re-encode, FAIK. But maybe somebody can correct me.

I don't know the details, but this is legal and logical for
applications that deal with base64.  Why not allowing such use makes
no sense to me.  There's always the odd case where it will be handy
for someone out there.

For instance, is how one would post an Ogg file in USENET outside alt.binaries.

> we need to ask Arek Korbik, author of XiphQT.

You are right.  Would anyone ping him?

> Skeleton will make the lives of developers easier, not harder.

They need to know that.  This document won't be the right place to
mention it.  Regardless, I'm going to "promote" audio/ogg to SHOULD
use Skeleton.  It will be tricky to explain how and why make a
distinction for Speex and Vorbis.

More information about the ogg-dev mailing list