Subject: [Cellar] EBML Rational Number

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:44:19 +0200

Since some Matroska elements would be better as rational numbers we
need a way to store them. I think a type would be better than using
two EBML Signed Integers. The bits in the VDATA would be divided in
half. The first part (signed) for the numerator, the second part
(signed?) for the denominator.

Opinions ?

-- 
Steve Lhomme
Matroska association Chairman

---

From: Moritz Bunkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:48:32 +0200

Hey,

to be honest, I'd rather we focus on turning both specs into IETF
standard. Extending both specs with new elements is all good and fine, but
it only adds to the already huge task we still have before us.

Kind regards,
mosu

---

From: Michael Niedermayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:14:03 +0200

> (signed?) for the denominator.

no oppinion on if adding a new element is a good idea or not but
if one is added with a pair of numbers only one number needs to be
signed. -a / -b == a / b

If one was crazy then one could also improve compression by only
storng relative primes. For example if a and b are even they can always
be divided by 2 so there is no need to waste a codeword for that in
theory ... i find this interresting which is why i mention it. Its
certainly not a good idea due to complexity vs (totally neglgible) gain.

An alternative to storing things using a pair of numbers would be
to use a existing type and use the nearest rational number.
this would provide some backward compatibility

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.
-- Heraclitus

---

From: Luca Barbato <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 01:29:08 +0200

> (signed?) for the denominator.

I'd rather not add another type and keep rational numbers as pairs of
integers (signed numerator, unsigned denominator).

lu

---

From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:28:55 +0200

> it only adds to the already huge task we still have before us.

I second that.

---

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:03:37 +0200

> it only adds to the already huge task we still have before us.

I totally agree but I wanted to put out there for discussion. It can
be added in the far future or later. It's definitely not a priority
right now.

> Kind regards,
> mosu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar