[Matroska-devel] Re: Re: EBML

[Paul Bryson]

"Martin Nilsson" wrote...
> Paul Bryson wrote:
> > Sometimes it was difficult to understand exactly what a given
> > field was for, and in working with the Matroska Tags, I would simply link to
> > those specs hoping that others would understand the purpose.
>
> Understandable, but in my opinion wrong. Just include what you really
> have a need for. The way specifications and libraries tend to grow is
> probably one of the more difficult problems to overcome/avoid. You need
> to have an objective look at your specification and question what is
> good and what shouldn't be there, and that is _really_ hard.

The decision was made to support every tag from every common consumer tagging
format.  There are of course a few items that are container specific, so they
weren't used.

> WRT tagging
> I would suggest you to drop support for AENC, since no one uses it, and

Matroska has its own methods for encryption as discussed earlier.  This was only
listed for the possibility of importing DRM'd MP3 files.  However, if no one
uses it, then it is not needed here.

> EQU2, since it is underspecified. Instead there should have been a frame
> with spectral average which could be used as input to a function that
> generated equalization curves. Generally speaking though it would all be
> a waste of time since people really only want to have volume
> equalization between files (We did some feature research together with
> mp3.com a while back).

On your advice, I will remove this.  The Audio_Gain/Peak fields should be
sufficient as they use an already defined standard.  Apparently I forgot to
commit the version of the tags specs where this was updated. This isn't yet
finalized though as there is a little discussion going on about how to define
the scopes of these tags specifically.

> ChapterUID exists both in Chapters and Tagging. TrackUID exists both in
> Track and Tagging. Duration exists both in Info and Cluster. These three
> are just naming problems, since I decided that element names should be
> unique in a DTD.

This is my fault, and I actually wondered if anyone would comment on it when I
did it.  These should probably be renamed under the tags section to
TagChapterUID and TagTrackUID.  Does anyone have any opinion about this?


Pamel

BTW, I really wish I was awake at the same time that you guys have this active
discussion.