[FFmpeg-devel] [libav-devel] Remote participation options for IETF session on MKV/FFV1 at July 22 @ 9 CEST

Michael Niedermayer michael at niedermayer.cc
Tue Jul 21 20:59:34 CEST 2015

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 02:03:16PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Kostya Shishkov <kostya.shishkov at gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:52:55AM -0400, Dave Rice wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > [...]
> > > The FFV1 specification work may also be reviewed at github [5] with
> > recent rendering in HTML [6] and PDF [7] available. To participate in the
> > current standardization efforts of FFV1 please visit the ffmpeg-devel
> > mailing list [8] or the #ffmpeg-devel [8] IRC channel on freenode.
> >
> > I'd suggest that any standardisation includes not only "specification" but
> > also an independent implementation - it helps to figure out what's wrong
> > with
> > the specification and maybe gives a small standalone library instead of
> > something spread out on half a dozen files in a large software project.
> +1. I can't stress how important this is. In addition, the spec should be
> the master, not any one implementation (because then the bugs in that one
> implementation will "be" the spec, regardless of what the bug is).
> Thank you Kostya.

that makes sense for future versions but not for past ones
There is a large number of existing ffv1 files out there.
Now most likely spec and implementation match anyway but assuming they
do not match for version 1 then there are 2 options
A: change the spec for version 1
B: change the implementation for version 1

If now all implementations match and just the spec mismatches then

If the spec is changed it would probably affect noone

If the implementation is changed then suddenly there are 2
interpretations of what version 1 means and possibly no easy way to
find out if a existing file used the old or new one (as both would
claim to be version 1). That would be really bad, especially for a
lossless format.

IMO if there ever is a difference found, the exact case and difference
need to be carefully analyzed and all options considered with what
impact they would have on implementations and users

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User
questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML.
And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20150721/909f6508/attachment.sig>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list