[Matroska-devel] mkv standardization and documentation

Erik Piil piil.erik at gmail.com
Tue Apr 21 16:12:39 CEST 2015

Hi Matroska-devel,

Following up on this conversation, upon further inspection of
seems that the RFC EBML draft is unofficial but the EBML specifications
found at http://matroska-org.github.io/libebml/
in fact are. There is a lot of significant description about EBML that only
appears in the RFC draft, and it would be great to incorporate this
information into the main specification prior to IETF submission. What
would be the best method for considering this content for inclusion into
the main specification? Can I open tickets for selected passages?

Additionally, I noticed that the RFC EBML draft found at
http://matroska.org/technical/specs/rfc/index.html appears to be under
copyright. Did Nilsson give Matroska permission to distribute/build upon
this draft?



On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Dave Rice <dave at dericed.com> wrote:

> Hi Moritz,
> > On Apr 17, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Moritz Bunkus <moritz at bunkus.org> wrote:
> >>      It made sense to us to start a documentation review with EBML and
> >>      then work towards Matroska’s documentation. With EBML I see there
> >>      are two main documentation sets: a draft RFC at
> >>      http://matroska.org/technical/specs/rfc/index.html
> >>      <http://matroska.org/technical/specs/rfc/index.html> and the EBML
> >>      sourceforce page at http://ebml.sourceforge.net/specs/
> >>      <http://ebml.sourceforge.net/specs/>. The two sets seem that have
> >>      diverged at some point; for instance the RFC draft labels element
> id
> >>      0x42F2 as EBMLMaxIDWidth whereas the sourceforge site calls is
> >>      EBMLMaxIDLength. The definitions for the CRC Element vary between
> >>      the two as well in respect to ordering. So does either the RFC
> draft
> >>      or the specs at Sourceforce take precedent over the other? What is
> >>      the status of the RFC draft of EBML?
> >
> > The RFC draft is work someone else started way back when, but it never
> > got real attention, nor was it properly reviewed or even finished. The
> > RFC is definitely not authoritative; the specs should be. Although I
> > have to admit that I haven't looked at the specs EBML specs at
> > http://ebml.sourceforge.net/specs/ in ages, hence me saying that they
> > _should_ be authoritative.
> >
> > What I am usually working with is the Matroska specs page at
> > http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/index.html – which seems to
> > include all the information from the EBML specs page.
> Is there still an intent for two separate specifications: one for EBML and
> one for Matroska?
> I know that there are some other formats based on the Matroska spec like
> webM, but are there other formats dependent on the EBML specification
> (nut?)?
> Also is the Matroska specification dependent on the EBML spec is is it
> considered to stand-alone?
> Is there an EBML maintainer at the moment?
> > I think that working out the differences between the two specs pages and
> > the RFC and coming to a consensus how to deal with those differences
> > would be a good starting point. From there finishing the RFC would
> > likely come next.
> >
> > I would also like to reduce the number of pages listing specs, most
> > likely resulting in removing the stuff from sourceforge. This would cut
> > down on the confusion and lead to fewer mistakes and discrepancies.
> That would help or at least some notices about when one document is
> superseded by another.
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> Matroska-devel mailing list
> Matroska-devel at lists.matroska.org
> http://lists.matroska.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/matroska-devel
> Read Matroska-Devel on GMane:
> http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.matroska.devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/attachments/20150421/2b726fa1/attachment.html>

More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list