[Matroska-devel] Re: Re: EBML
moritz at bunkus.org
Mon Mar 15 09:38:19 CET 2004
this I can comment on quickly before leaving for University.
> > > Also note that the Matroska DTD says that the elements are ordered. I
> > > assume that's not the case in reality, right? (Though it would be a very
> > > good property IMHO)
My take on this issue, from the thread Paul linked to:
Note that I talk about _Matroska_ there, not _EBML_. For EBML having the
same rules as XML would probably be best: the order of different
elements does matter, the order of consecutive elements of the same type
does not matter. This will not pose a problem for Matroska as what I've
outlined in the post mentioned above only restricts this further.
However, if we allow consecutive EBML elements of the same type to be in
any order we also have to allow that the DTD may restrict this. The
other way round (saying 'order of the same elements does matter, but the
DTD may overrule this') is not acceptable and would immediately render
all current Matroska files non spec compliant.
If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make marriage
unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial
nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment
to the commercial growth of prostitution. - Linus Torvalds
More information about the Matroska-devel