[Bug 22139] MSE and ISOBMFF interoperability

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22139

--- Comment #4 from Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I have no problem making recommendations, although anyone who wants to write
> an ISO file should know its their responsibility to make the file compliant:
> they can't just expect to take some arbitrary collection of  boxes received
> over MSE and have it make a compliant file.
Mark, I agree it's their responsibility but I still think the recommendations
are not unnecessary.

> 
> Why do we need a new brand, though ? Aren't the existing brands sufficient ?
The new brands may not be necessary. It's more of a good practice and may prove
useful in case MSE byte streams diverge from ISOBMF.

(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't really think we should be specifying a file format. The bytestream
> specifications were designed to allow the minimal useful subset of existing
> file format elements to be fed into the UA. It was never designed to act as
> a storage format. In fact some of the power comes from the fact that you
> don't need unnecessary stuff like ftype,styp, or indexes. I believe
> specifying a storage format is out of scope for the MSE spec.
MPEG-2 TS was never meant to be a file format either, yet you find m2t m2v
mpeg2 ... files on servers. I don't want MSE to specify a full-fledged file
format, just make some recommendations to avoid creating a format mess. I'm
saying people will store MSE byte streams as files. We should be pro-active
here to avoid problems in the future.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 11:43:56 UTC