[Vorbis-dev] Re: [ogg-dev] Peer review draft for the new media
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
justivo at gmail.com
Thu Oct 4 15:43:36 PDT 2007
Following thread's feedback, I'm updating the file, and I'll soon
commit the revised version to SVN. From there, I guess final
fixes/patches may be applied by anyone instead of reporting.
How to better describe executable content and security considerations
regarding it? Trust only content that is certified through SSL/TSL?
Mac Type Code. I've been reading about it, and it seems to be a
pre-OS X standard that is to be/has been replaced by Uniform Type
Identifiers. No idea then if it's worth to keep the four letters
Type Code in our registration proposal. If it is, I guess OggX, OggV,
and OggA will do.
On 10/4/07, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is expected that .oga will break players that
> interpret them as .ogg files - but that's not a problem because they
> will not even want to open a .oga file. As soon as .oga support is
> implemented in the player, it will parse the skeleton track and know
> what's inside and then use the appropriate audio decoder.
Then is it expected that oggenc will be updated with a -oga switch
where a Skeleton track is added? Instead of music.ogg, it would
output music.oga with a Skeleton track?
Speaking of Skeleton, what is the correct way to define it? As in,
"this file has a Skeleton track". Is Skeleton presence in Ogg always
described as a "track"?
More information about the ogg-dev