Subject: [Cellar] Documents Splitting

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:46:47 +0200

As I'm reviewing the various issues in the Matroska specification
repo, it seems there are the issues related to the wording,
clarifications on the format. And issues to define codecs and tags.

While defining Matroska properly is a large task on its own, I think
adding the requirement that we want all the existing supported codecs
and tags in that same documentation is a huge task that may never end.

I suggest moving the codec and tags documentation/specifications in
their own documentation. We may also split codecs by
audio/video/subtitles to make even more manageable documents.

Historically I always put the codec mapping outside of the
documentation because it doesn't really matter at the Matroska level
what's inside a codec. It was designed specifically to not need to
know anything about the codec (or tags) to be usable. So it seem(ed)
logical that the documentation follows the same philosophy.

Any opinions for or against this ?

-- 
Steve Lhomme
Matroska association Chairman

---

From: Moritz Bunkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:48:47 +0200

Hey,

I concur, for the same reasons you've stated. The base format is more
than enough work already and more important. This should hopefully let
us focus a bit better.

Kind regards,
mosu

---

From: Reto Kromer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:51:33 +0200

Steve Lhomme wrote:

>I suggest moving the codec and tags
>documentation/specifications in their own documentation.

+1

>documentation because it doesn't really matter at the Matroska
>level what's inside a codec. It was designed specifically to
>not need to know anything about the codec (or tags) to be
>usable.

Indeed!

Best regards, Reto

AV Preservation by reto.ch
chemin du Suchet 5 | 1024 Ecublens | Switzerland
Web: <https://reto.ch> | Twitter: @retoch

---

From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:56:44 +0200

Le 14/07/2017 à 17:46, Steve Lhomme a écrit :
> their own documentation.

+1

> We may also split codecs by

I am not sure such split makes sense to split this way as 
audio/video/subtitles is opaque for Matroska (it is just a "tag", and 
Video/Audio elements in the track headers are defined in the main doc)

---

From: Dave Rice <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:14:44 -0400

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

+1

The other cellar docs are in the range of 31-39 pages while the Matroska document is currently 216 pages! I support moving the codec section and the tags section to separate documents.

> I am not sure such split makes sense to split this way as audio/video/subtitles is opaque for Matroska (it is just a "tag", and Video/Audio elements in the track headers are defined in the main doc)

Same as Jerome. I suggest leaving the documentation for codecs together rather than splitting by type.

Dave Rice

---

From: Tessa Fallon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:55:42 +0200

Since we're two days away from the CELLAR group meeting, I'd like to move
this discussion there (7/21, 9:30 CEST).

Tessa

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Dave Rice <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The other cellar docs are in the range of 31-39 pages while the Matroska
> document is currently 216 pages! I support moving the codec section and the
> tags section to separate documents.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar
>