[matroska-devel] Re: container format

Steve Lhomme steve.lhomme at free.fr
Sat Feb 8 23:16:56 CET 2003

ChristianHJW wrote:
>>As for the other mails: I'm not so sure that both 'formats' want to
>>achieve the same thing. As far as I understand matroska wants to be
>>extendable, rather complete and the like. What the MPlayer guys want to
>>have is something simpler, more in the direction of Ogg, but with some
>>fundamental differences.
> What i still dont undertstand is what the need for an 'easy' format is. Easy
> to code ? Well, thats why we made libmatroska, to make it easy to be
> supported from any apps. We always promised to make a C API, and there will
> be one.
> Easy to parse ? Well, are their PCs so weak that they fear the impacts on
> their CPUs when parsing matroska ?
> Anyway, they are free to do what they want.

What I don't understand is how they managed to get some code from Apple, 
Real Networks or Microsoft to support Quicktime, RealMedia, ASF, AVI, 
etc... They gave them clean sources with a C API ?

We try to make our best to please people. And here is what we get...

If MPlayer can't stand any line of C++, then they can code the parser 
for matroska in C if they want. Because it's going to be there and 
supported in popular Windows apps (VirtualDub & DirectShow). So one way 
or another they'll have to support it.


More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list