[Matroska-devel] mkv standardization and documentation

Erik Piil piil.erik at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 22:07:32 CEST 2015


Per this discussion, I broke down the differences between the current
Matroska EBML spec and the earlier EBML RFC Draft [see here:
I’ll begin posting one thread per spec component tonight for discussion
with the list.



On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Moritz Bunkus <moritz at bunkus.org> wrote:

> Hey,
> > …it seems that the RFC EBML draft is unofficial…
> Correct.
> > 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.
> Definitely. Finishing the RFC or fleshing out the specs is very much
> wanted.
> > What would be the best method for considering this content for
> > inclusion into the main specification? Can I open tickets for selected
> > passages?
> 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
> repository[3]which 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 (!) [1][2].
> 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
>   license.
> - If he agrees we import the RFC as it is into the Foundation git
>   repo[3].
> - 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?
> Kind regards,
> mosu
> [1]
> http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/2004-February/thread.html
> [2]
> http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/2004-March/thread.html
> [3] https://github.com/Matroska-Org/foundation-source
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150427/ed78cd51/attachment.html>

More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list