[Matroska-devel] mkv standardization and documentation
dave at dericed.com
Tue Apr 21 18:19:11 CEST 2015
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Moritz Bunkus <moritz at bunkus.org> wrote:
>> What would be the best method for considering this content for
>> inclusion into the main specification? Can I open tickets for selected
> Hmm. Traditionally all _discussion_ about the EBML and Matroska
> specification took place here on this list (and for smaller, not so
> relevant parts on IRC). I'd rather keep it that way – not because I
> think that mailing lists are that much superior to GitHub but in order
> not to spread it out over too many sites.
> However, if it's only about including certain parts then pull requests
> are probably the best things to have.
> And for pull requests we would need to include the RFC in the Foundation
> repositorywhich it currently isn't. Which leads us directly to the
> next question:
>> 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?
> Not that I remember. That discussion took place in February and March of
> 2004 (!) .
> I'd suggest the following:
> - We contact Martin Nilsson and ask him to either assign the copyright
> to the Matroska organization (Steve Lhomme has created a French not
> for profit organization) or to place that RFC draft under a permissive
> - If he agrees we import the RFC as it is into the Foundation git
> - Discussion about the RFC should take place on this list.
> - Requests for changes in either the EBML specs of the RFC should be
> posted as pull requests or issues on the Foundation repo via Github.
> How does that sound?
Sounds okay for us. We can email Martin (I see his email here: http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/2004-February/001476.html <http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/2004-February/001476.html>, but does anyone have a more recent one?) and request a copyright transfer to CoreCodec.
To facilitate a discussion on the gaps between the RFC draft and the spec, we can break down the content that is only in the RFC draft into components and then start one thread per component. This would include the original text and any commentary. Hopefully each thread would lead to a conclusion to merge into the spec, reject entirely, or revise then merge into spec. Once we get to the ‘merge into spec’ conclusion we can start a pull request and continue the conversation there.
At the end of this (hopefully) we have a comprehensive and official EBML spec. Not a new version of EBML, but simply a clarification and cleanup of the existing EBML format. Once that point is reached we could consider Martin's RFC draft and draft a new one from the EBML spec. How’s this plan?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Matroska-devel