[vorbis] PROPOSAL: Sub-Tagging

[Beni Cherniavksy]

On 2001-12-08, Monty wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:20:07AM +0100, Trick wrote:
> > I mentioned sub-tagging in an earlier post. Here's a more in-depth mail on
> > what i thought of.
>
> OK, time to wade in...
>
> First off, all the proposals thus far are well meaning, but most of
> them are missing the mark.
>
> Aside from whether or not subtagging is a good idea or not (IMHBCO,
> it's not a good idea), it cannot be implemented.  The format is frozen
> at 1.0, and this cannot be done within the 1.0 spec.  Sorry folks,
> we've been in format feature freeze since June, and this idea cannot
> be implemented without breaking decoders that have already been
> guaranteed to work forever.
>
> Monty
>
Could you point out how this breaks any decoders?  There were some
proposals that are tag-incompatible and some misunderstandings of the
format (like asking how to write a tag named "A=B") but the resulting
"concensus" doesn't break the bitstream format in any way. The only way
existing decoders can be hurt by changing tag semantics (and it is almost
completely backward-compatible too) is if they are hardwired to display
only specific tags - that can't be considered implementation of tag
reading anyway, can't it?

What implementation do you talk about?  If I just start using these tags
tomorrow, what will not work for me?


-- 
Beni Cherniavsky <cben at tx.technion.ac.il>
                 (also scben at t2 in Technion)

<p><p><p>--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.