On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:57:55PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
Extensions are
just too inflexible to match up with reality... Ogg
isn't at all the only container to give up on that.. for example, what
extension does a PDF of layed out ascii have? A PDF of scanned pages?
A PDF of postscript algorithms that computes fractals?
Nonsense, there are three types of ogg: audio, video and weird rubbish that
nobody cares about. To use a different extension to one of these brings
instant usability benefits to a large volume of users.
Well, IMO, if you're going to say "this is a custom extension for an
OGG container with only one type of content", you should do *both* .oga
and .ogv, and then do that hard parsing at run time for .oggs that you
couldn't pre-classify.
The problem isn't "creating a new .ogv". It's "redefining .ogg as
meaning something more specific than it does". If you're going to
impose more specific semantics, do it to your *own* extension, not the
standard one.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
they stop having sex with you." -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_