[matroska-devel] Re: How UCI and Matroska could interact

Pamel paul at msn.com
Thu Jan 23 19:39:39 CET 2003

"Steve Lhomme" <steve.lhomme at free.fr> wrote
> Well, the BlockAdditional is already placed after the Block. But it's not
> syntaxicaly or semanticaly nice. Because it depends on the order of
> And for example reorganising Blocks between tracks and timecodes to make
> reading faster would be harder because of this. If everything is contained
in a
> bigger element, that's safe.

I agree, it would make it more difficult when arranging the elements.

> That's why the track number
> and the timecode should remain in the Block (not the reference timecodes

So, reference timecodes, outside of the block element.
I'm not sure if I understand the EBML correctly.  Is it possible for the
Block element to contain the binary block data, and also have sub elements?
So, the Block is the exact same size as initialy, but sub elements can be
added which increase the size?

> (3 to 4 octets added for each reference, the differentiation of
> is not used anymore, since we deal with signed timecodes)

There are those pesky timecodes again.  The Cluster timecode needs to have
the same time as the earliest timecoded frame in the cluster, otherwise
seeking becomes nearly impossible to do correctly.



More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list