[Vorbis] .ogg extension and Theora

[noprivacy at earthlink.net]

<40D62688.1050109 at griffith.edu.au>
Message-ID: <008e01c4572e$2a5d82a0$67389c3f at computername>

From: "Stephen So" <S.So at griffith.edu.au>

> Personally, I'm all for an extension change but since Xiph is refusing
> to budge on this, then standing still is simply not an option and we
> have to make it work somehow.

The mime stuff is going to be worse than no solution.

It'll cause more problems than it'll solve.


> >It's not a "Windows" problem.  (From what I gather from some of the Linux
> >users in here, it has the problem too.  And probably the Mac as well.)
>
> I never said it was just a Windows problem.  But since a large
> proportion of computer users out there are Windows users, and

True.

But the Xiph developers are avid Linux users.  Windows problems aren't a
major concern for them.

> >The same problem effects the web.  Anytime you see a .ogg file on the web
or
> >a ftp site, or a p2p program, you still wont automatically know what kind
it
> >is.  All of those apps would have to be updated as well, just to satisfy
the
> >desires of Xiph.org
>
> As I said above, the solution I'm proposing is not in anyway trying to
> justify or support the single extension camp.  It doesn't solve every
> problem (eg. the one you speak about) but it's just an idea to make do
> with what Xiph will eventually offer.

If it doesn't even solve most of the problems, then why bother proposing it?

(That's basically what Xiph is doing.)

> I'm curious about Microsoft's *.asf extension for their advanced
> streaming format.  It seems that some portable players claim they
> support *.asf as if it were some audio container, when most people
> recognise it as containing mostly video (and audio).  I bet the reason

It's just a standard media container.  Kinda like ogg.  It was designed for
streaming.  (Since .avi wasn't.)

But Microsoft couldn't force people to actually like it, so they gave in and
changed the extensions to .WMA for audio and .WMV for video.

Users want to be able to instantly recognise the difference between audio &
video, no matter where the filename was at.


> Microsoft gets away with *.asf is because their players are under their
> control, they produce the specs, and others (hardware manufacturers)

Actually, they no longer recommend asf.  Instead it's .wma or .wmv


> >>clicking on each file would start the appropriate player.   Basically
> >>what I am saying is we should *ditch Windows explorer* and have our own
> >>"Ogg explorer" (hey, that's another name to try :) ) which will open the
> >
> >I'm sure you can talk Microsoft into adding that to XP, WinMe, Win98,
etc.
> >etc....
>
> Did I ever suggest that?  I detect a sense of irrationality here.  When
> I say *ditch Windows explorer*, I mean *we* (the user) should ditch it
> for organising our ogg files, not Microsoft.

I knew that.  But users aren't going to do that.  A very very large number
will resist.  Or not understand why they should even bother.  Or just give
up on .ogg entirely since they don't have to do that for .mp3, .mpg, .wma,
or .wmv.

The only way to get that ability to even be vaguely common is to get the OS
makers to do that.



> >Most users aren't going to want to install a large program just so they
can
> >play a media file.  A codec is one thing.  A larger file explorer is a
> >little bit different.
>
> Ever heard of Jukebox software?  Users seem to like iTunes a lot for
> handling their m4a files and categorising based on artist, genre, album,

Some people like iTunes.  Not many Windows users seem to actually like it
though.  They use it for buying music, but not for their own stuff.

I don't think most people like Jukeboxes because they are more concerned
about coercing the user to do things their way, rather than letting the user
organize the way they want.

I've tried a few and given up on them because it's too much trouble to do it
their way than it is for me to do it myself the way I want.




> >And you have to accept the performance penalty involved in opening each
and
> >every .ogg file to see what it really is.  That involves not only quickly
> >opening it and reading the header, but reading enough of the file to make
> >sure that there isn't video or such at the very end.
>
> Music organisation programs like iTunes, Winamp's media library, etc.
> can do this type of thing and get information by reading the headers and

They only have to read a small header for mp3.  And they store that in a
cache.

That wont help if all the files are on a removable media or such.  In which
case it can take quite a while.

> tags.  It is not such a big deal reading the header of an Ogg file and
> seeing what type of streams are inside.  Ogginfo does it, VorbisExt does
> it too and they read Vorbis comments as well.

It does take time.

And for Ogg, you have to read the whole file, not just the header.  You
gotta make sure that there is absolutely no content anywhere in the file
that your other player can't handle.


> That is moot point.  Bugs exists in all software.  And they all can
> crash and lock up our systems, so  I don't see why we don't use this
> excuse to quit using every complex program (or OS) because it is not
> elegant enough.

KISS principle.  "Keep it simple, stupid."

You don't integrate anything into the OS you don't have to.

Otherwise you end up with a Microsoft kind of situation where even minor
bugs can cause major problems.


> >My 'organizing by content' of media files usually involves moving video
> >files to a seperate directory from my music files.   I think most people
do
> >about that and little else.
>
> If average users can use jukebox software, I'm sure this type of program

It's not whether they *can* but whether they want to.

Most users don't like being forced to do something first, just to do
something simple later.  Like installing a major OS component just to be
able to click on audio file and have their music player come up.