[Matroska-devel] Re: Re: Re: Compromise Encryption Proposal

Joseph Ashwood ashwood at msn.com
Tue Jan 31 13:19:09 CET 2006


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Matsnev" <mike at po.cs.msu.su>
Subject: Re: [Matroska-devel] Re: Re: Re: Compromise Encryption Proposal


> Hello!
>
> As I understand these proposals, they represent a radical departure
> from current Matroska syntax. So radical that no current software can
> be reused at all for reading and writing encrypted files (even at source
> code level). Given this I see no point in putting it in Matroska specs
> and calling it Matroska, as we'll end up having two different specs
> under the same name. Why not create another ebml based container
> with a different name and use that for encrypted content?

I don't see it as a radical departure. In fact the default (the proposed 
implied values) is exactly Matroska. I see the proposals I've made as 
relatively small additions, and with the exclusion of the ability to change 
the fundamentals of the element (which is only useful in extreme 
circumstances, and most parsers won't need to implement) the same parser can 
probably be used with minimal changes. Not having examined the code I 
speculate that pretty much every splitter includes something like 
processElement(...), altering this function to include
if(transformPresent) processTransform(...)
should pretty well take care of it.
                Joe 





More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list