Re: What about ogg?

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:51 AM, dos386 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What does webm mean for the ogg container?
>
> Let's drop it ? (see below)

We will not be dropping Ogg.  WebM going with Matroska gives us the
break we've wanted for a long time to eventually push out a new
revision.  My current loose plan, which I've not committed to, is to
begin rolling out transOgg along with the next generation of codecs.

>> brainstorming page (as I understand it), but with very real ideas:
>> http://wiki.xiph.org/TransOgg
>
> Regrettably, OGG is the worst supported container by FFMPEG/MPLAYER, but
> also it has problems with timing (FireFOX is the only player where it works,
> MPLAYER/VLC both fail ...).

Ogg has no inhenernt timing issues.  You don't drop a container
because two players have bugs.  Mplayer's timing is semi broken with
just about every container.

> So let's ask the opposite question:
>
> What is the killer argument against dropping OGG in favor of
> WebM / Matroska / simplified Matroska or NUT ?

We'll be supporting Matroska moving forward, but I don't personally
have any intent to actually drop Ogg.  That's pretty much your killer
argument. I continue to work on it primarily because I want to.  You
can ignore it if you want to, but that's not really going to stop me
:-)

> There used to be "NUT" also:
>
> http://wiki.xiph.org/Nut_issues
> http://www.nut-container.org/
> http://wiki.xiph.org/OggIssues

It makes little sense to drop Ogg for another unfinished container
that has deeper practical problems.

Monty