Re: 3GPP-T-WG3 codecs

Forgive my ignorance, but could you give us an example of a SMIL player?

On 12/12/00 5:54 am, "Philipp Hoschka" <hoschka@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The rationale for picking audio/basic was that it
> is widely supported in SMIL players today, and doesn't
> require paying a license fee.
> 
> If you know of another license-free, widely
> supported audio format with better
> characteristics than audio/basic, that may be
> interesting.
> 
> --- thierry michel <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>> RE: 3GPP-T-WG3 codecs
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>   From: Glenn Parsons
>>   To: discuss@apps.ietf.org ; www-smil@w3.org ;
>> 'Philipp Hoschka'
>>   Cc: 'IETF VPIM List'
>>   Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 8:28 PM
>>   Subject: [Moderator Action] RE: 3GPP-T-WG3 codecs
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   Philipp, I'd be interested in the rational that
>> made you pick audio/basic
>> 
>>     FWIW, there is a set of "recommended" codecs in
>> the SMIL 2.0 
>>     draft of W3C, and I'm happy to explain why we
>> chose those, if 
>>     needed: 
>> 
>>    
>> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-smil20-20000921/smil20-profile.html#BaselineForma
> tsNS
>> 
>> 
>>> Widely Supported MIME Types
>>> 
>>>    This section is informative.
>>> 
>>>    The members of the W3C SYMM Working Group
>> believe that the following
>>>    MIME types will be widely supported by SMIL
>> players: 
>>>      * audio/basic [592][MIME-2]
>>>      * image/png ([593][PNG-MIME],
>> [594][PNG-REC]) 
>>>      * image/jpeg ([595][MIME-2], [596][JFIF])
>> 
>>>    Implementers of SMIL players should thus
>> strive to provide support for
>>>    each of these types. Note, however, that
>> this section is 
>>>    non-normative, and that support for these
>> MIME types is not a
>>>    precondition for conformance to this
>> specification. 
>>> 
>>>    Authors are encouraged to encode media
>> objects using one of the widely
>>>    supported MIME types whenever possible.
>> This will ensure that their
>>>    SMIL documents can be played back by a wide
>> range of SMIL players.
>>> 
>>>    If authors use a MIME type that is not in
>> the list of widely supported
>>>    types, they should provide an alternative
>> version encoded using a
>>>    baseline format. This can be achieved by
>> using a switch element as
>>>    shown in the following example:
>>> <switch> 
>>>   <audio src="non-baseline-format-object" />
>>>   <audio src="baseline-format-object" />
>>> </switch> 
>>> 
>>>    In this example, a player that supports the
>> non-baseline format will
>>>    play the first audio media object, and a
>> player that does not support
>>>    the non-baseline format will play the
>> second media object.
>> 
>>     In general, I'm a bit confused about the request
>> - why would the 
>>     IETF have to comment on the minimal set of
>> codecs in a format
>>     defined by another organisation ? This would
>> make sense if the
>>     goal is to define a minimal set of codecs that
>> need to be supported
>>     by MIME mail readers, but otherwise, I don't see
>> the point - am 
>>     I missing something ?
>> 
>>   I don't think the IETF _has_ to comment, we've
>> just been asked..
>> 
>>   This is more about the codecs available on various
>> devices.  Few if any mail clients have audio codecs
>> included.  
>> 
>>   Cheers, 
>>   Glenn. 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 14:05:53 UTC