Re: standardization goal

Moritz Bunkus <[email protected]> Fri, 1 May 2015 14:13:54 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.multimedia.matroska.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hey Dave,

thanks for this exhaustive description. It's good to know such details.

After having read it I agree with you on how we should proceed: bringing
the EBML specs into shape with input from the draft RFC. Later we can
convert the specs into a formal RFC.

Citing the relevant part from your mail:

> Because the RFC draft claims to be a draft but the EBML spec doesn’t,
> I’ve been considering the EBML spec as the central document for us to
> work on. I’d like to merge the two parts of it (index.html and
> spec.html) and continue to selectively consider what parts of the RFC
> draft should be evaluated and pulled into the main spec. Following
> that we can review the EBML spec in its entirety, ensuring that it is
> complete enough to implement an EBML muxer/demuxer and work to convert
> the web presentation of the spec to RFC style.

I also and explicitly agree that changing existing meaning should not be
done now; we're in the process of cleaning up and formalizing existing
practice.

You should also not mix refactoring with functionality changes when
coding; it often enough leads to bugs/problems (for multiple reasons).

Kind regards,
mosu

_______________________________________________
Matroska-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.matroska.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/matroska-devel
Read Matroska-Devel on GMane: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.matroska.devel

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 819 B)