[Matroska-devel] RFC 1134 - New EBML Block design

Steve Lhomme steve.lhomme at free.fr
Tue Jan 20 23:33:38 CET 2004

Moritz Bunkus wrote:

> If we be radical we can also think about using simple flags for track
> types. We could use the bits 3 and 4 like this:
> 00: I frame
> 01: P frame
> 10: B frame
> 11: invalid
> The ReferenceBlocks would then be _optional_ for such a block. If
> they're not present the references are implicitely given. However, if
> some special application needs some special references it may still add
> them. The number / types of references must then comply to the flags
> used.
> This would save us a lot of space.

Each time you introduce such design differences it makes the format 2x 
more complicated to understand/parse/handle/whatever. I'm against adding 
these inferior bit system compared to the reference system.

> All in all I like this more flexible block layout very much.

Why ?

More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list