[ogg-dev] libogg++ release 1.1.0

Silvia Pfeiffer silvia at silvia-pfeiffer.de
Tue Jun 9 16:07:16 PDT 2009

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:09 AM, ter<et at ihear.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 00:00 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> > My applications are in speech processing. I have been using the .ala
>> > extension (has sort of a ring to it). There is a small database in the
>> > FreeCLAS project that has been dispensing .alas to the public. But not
>> > to worry, it has not attained social networking status. I am about to
>> > update it to the next release, and I'll be happy to use an Ogg standard
>> > extension. In that regard, since the "x" in this case is quite
>> > specificly "linguistic", could I bid for an .ogl extension for
>> > multi-track with linguistic content, if it is not already taken?
>> The definition of new mime types (including file extensions) is
>> something that should be well considered, if you are planning for a
>> wider uptake of the file format. ogx  (for ogg multiplex) is useful in
>> that it claims there could be anything in this ogg container and you
>> are free to use this extension for it. If that is not sufficient for
>> you and you think that your particular combination of tracks requires
>> a new mime type (e.g. "it is not just a ogg multiplex file, but a file
>> with linguistic content that will typically be used by linguistic
>> applications"), then you should totally invent your own mime and file
>> type (e.g. application/ogg+linguistic and .ogl). It's your choice. :)
> I was trying to be flippant, and maybe not succeeding. Hopefully, others
> working in the linguistic areas will find ALingA useful, and ogl will
> emerge as a new type without requiring too much from me.

Yes, but there's a serious side to this, too. :-)
Make your choice and stick to it is all I can say, really. :)


More information about the ogg-dev mailing list