On 01/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm thinking in terms of as a transparent
part of the upload process.
> Same sort of reason we have Java-based inline media players for Ogg
> content: computers are painful enough.
But as you've observed... it's not very fun if
the software goes
"*BZZT* we don't support this codec"... and there is by no means
uniformity in the realm of video codecs.
Um yeah. Beta time!
I've had a rather hard time transcoding some of
the stuff that has
previously been uploaded (incorrectly named .ogg to bypass the upload
filters).
Uh whuh? Doesn't it also check the magic numbers to make sure it
really is the type it says it is?
Anything we could impliment server side (ignoring all
possible
licensing issues) is going to be hit or miss, hopefully more hit than
miss but "If you can play it in Windows Media this tool can upload it"
should be pretty attractive.
Indeed! Or in VLC. Heck, we could use VideoLan for the job.
- d.