[FFmpeg-devel] Suggestion for a centralized language-tag facility in libavformat

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Fri Apr 17 15:16:22 CEST 2009

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:13:42PM +0200, cyril comparon wrote:
> Hi and thank you for your very complete tips.
> However, being a developer myself, I still made the decisions I made
> for the following reasons:

> - no public dinstinction beween 639-2-B and 639-2-T: the main purpose
> is to provide one pivotal code space that could be used as a
> transition for every code-space conversion ; not two. I could have
> gotten rid of 639-2-T but I still wanted to be able to convert from
> it.
> - considering 639-2 codespace as a central codespace to convert
> through, no need to write x*(x-1) conversion functions but only
> 2*(x-1)

basically your system is not extendible, no single other language code
set can ever be added, SIL? no ISO 639-3? no

> - there won't be lots more of standard codespaces to integrate. Even
> the RFC1766 relies on 639-1 (plus an additional geographic marker).

see above

> - keeping things as simple as possible for the same result
> I am pretty confident my argument is sound but I am not an
> ffmpeg-developer so I'll let you with the final decision.

simple is good, non extendible, slow and bloated is bad.

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad
people will find a way around the laws. -- Plato
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090417/4bc4d159/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list