AW: AW: AW: AW: [vorbis] Why the commotion about file extensions?

[Hauke Duden]

> Good point.  File extensions normally represent groups of related
> formats.  I don't propose differentiating everything (e.g. standalone
> FLAC from Ogg FLAC).  I do want as a minimum to tell apart these
> categories:
> 
> - Lossy audio: Vorbis, Speex.  But speech is useful to distinguish
>   from music, so making Speex separate is not a bad idea.
> - Lossless audio: FLAC, WAV (not that we can change the later ;).
> - Video: Theora, Tarkin.

Well, I think it is important not to make this extension stuff too
complicated. What would be the benefit of having different extensions for
lossy and non-lossy audio? Remember that if you think about individual files
you can always use a utility to see its properties (if you are an "above
average" user). IMHO the extension should provide just enough information to
differentiate between the two main categories of audio and video in order to
be able to handle large amounts of files. The way the codec can be included
as an optional part may also be something that could be defined. But as is
always the case in software design it is important to know where to stop.
Otherwise you end up encoding the whole audio header in the filename.

> Right - but you are trying to imporve it for the user who has trouble
> remembering codecs, while harming me <wink>.  As a person who is going
> to use Xiph (or other open) formats as much as possible, I don't care
> for many formats average users do, and I can easily remember all Xiph
> codecs ;-).

Wouldn't the scheme with the secondary optional codec extension work for you
as well? 

Hauke
--- >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.