[ogg-dev] libogg++ release 1.1.0

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:23 AM, ter<et at ihear.com> wrote:
> (Sorry, Sylvia, about the duplicate, hit the wrong reply button.)
> On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 08:07 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Hi Elaine,
>>
>> I flipped through some of the code but wasn't really about to
>> determine this: Do you also support Skeleton in libogg++ ?
> Hi, Silvia. I studied your multi-track work when I was working on
> ALingA. It was a valuable guide.
> No, libogg++ tries to be agnostic about codecs. As I understand it, the
> Ogg format is inherently multi-track, but does not mandate any
> particular multi-track protocol.
>
>>
>> If you are creating multitrack Ogg files, they should contain a
>> skeleton track to identify the different contained tracks.
>> http://wiki.xiph.org/OggSkeleton
> ALingA is a multitrack format
> (http://www.ihear.com/dtds/ALingA/0.1/ALingA.dtd) which has a skeleton
> track (what I call the co-ordinating stream), but one that is very
> specific, and based on the notion of a Manifold. It is implemented in
> the separate library libalinga, subclassing libogg++ to do the Ogg
> stuff

That sounds fine - as long as your files have a Skeleton track, you
can put whatever you want into Ogg. Have you specified your special
skeleton track and the data that you're putting into Ogg somewhere in
more details? What do you understand by a Manifold? I'm curious about
more documentation.


>>  And if the files aren't audio or
>> video files, you should then use the extension .ogx
>> http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/MIME_Types_and_File_Extensions .
> libogg++, libalinga and libneuro are all agnostic about whether the
> signal streams are audio or video or not. These libraries are aimed at
> analytical processing, and not at online multimedia. They defer to
> applications to conform to MIME naming.

What applications are you currently using on your special Ogg files?
Since you are using skeleton and ogx is already specified as a
standard for Ogg files with any types of multi-track content, it seems
appropriate. I assume you built some command-line applications (if
only for testing) with your libraries, so they would create the files
etc?

>> You may already be doing all of this - I just wasn't able to verify,
>> therefore the question.
>>
> I appreciate your interest, and would be happy to answer more.

And I appreciate the patience. :-)
I am rather intrigued and curious....

Regards,
Silvia.