[Matroska-devel] mkv standardization and documentation

Moritz Bunkus moritz at bunkus.org
Tue Apr 21 19:16:07 CEST 2015


> 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?)

I haven't had anything to do with him since then.

> and request a copyright transfer to CoreCodec.

No, not CoreCodec. CoreCodec has nothing to do with either EBML or
Matroska anymore.

@Steve, can you please give some details about the official name and
address of the Matroska non-profit you've founded? That organization
would be the best copyright holder for those things in my opinion.

> 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.

Sounds fine to me.

> 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?

That sounds good to me, too.

Kind regards,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/attachments/20150421/85ebcc14/attachment.sig>

More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list