[vorbis] Ogg bitstream spec question

[Michael Smith]

> >We're not going to change the bitstream format so that your implementation
> > can be slightly more convenient. The format is fixed (though future
> > versions may differ, of course).
>
> Woah!  What happened to open source?  Community effort?  Listening to
> your users?  You sound like you personally own the Ogg project.  Do you
> speak for everyone at Xiph.Org?  Such a rude rebuff of someone that is
> making a feature suggestion reminds me of the kind of service I get from
> the help desks of closed source products - not what I have become used
> to from the (large number of) other open source projects with which I
> have been involved.  If you want the Ogg project to live beyond your own
> personal input, you might want to reconsider that point of view.
>
> I am more than 70% through the implementation of the Ogg bitstream spec
> (in prep for vorbis decoder and then encoder implementations), which (if
> there is any interest) I intend to make freely available once complete.
>  Isn't this exactly what Xiph.Org professes to encourage?  Or does that
> encouragement extend only as long as you happen to agree with everything
> that I have to say?
>
> FYI - I am not suggesting modifying any existing spec.  Nor am I
> suggesting anything specific to any implementation.  I am /asking/
> whether or not it is considered useful to tunnel Ogg within Ogg and
> /suggesting/ that an additional spec that defines a standard mechanism
> for tunnelling Ogg within Ogg (similar to the way in which the Vorbis
> spec specifies Vorbis-in-Ogg) would be useful if that were the case.  I
> take it from your obvious bemusement that you do not consider it useful.
>  The usual way to express that sentiment on an open source project is to
> outline the reasons for your disagreement - not to flat out refuse to
> entertain the notion.
>
> ADK
>

<p>Hey! Calm down there. From what you _said_ - you've now clarified that you 
meant something else - it was entirely reasonable for me to think you were 
suggesting an incompatible change to the ogg format, with the only reasoning 
given being that it would simplify your implementation. You said nothing 
whatsoever to link this to your previous unclear question concerning 
ogg-in-ogg. If you don't want to be misunderstood, you should go to a little 
more effort to explain your intentions.

I didn't insult you or say anything rude - I merely stated that we wouldn't 
change the format. So, perhaps you'd like to keep _your_ correspondence to a 
similar level of politeness? 

Now, since you've clarified that you were talking about something entirely 
different - we'd be happy to have a look at, discuss, and eventually 
(assuming we can reach some general consensus) 'ratify' a proposal for 
ogg-in-ogg encapsulation, if you want to write one up. My instict is that 
it's probably not going to be commonly used, and so this need not be 
high-priority, but you may have some use in mind that you haven't discussed. 
Regardless of that, if you want to put the work in to write up a proposal, 
we're quite willing to discuss it.

Michael

--- >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.