[MPlayer-dev-eng] Re: [MPlayer-users] Re: lavc-Options for *BEST*

[Steve Lhomme]

Hi,

Let me introduce myself first so that this post is clear.
I'm working on the matroska container. I made the specs and the code for 
the library. I used to work on MCF but decided to create matroska for 
technical differences between MCF and matroska.

For those who don't know anything about matroska :
http://matroska.org/
which is based on EBML
http://ebml.sourceforge.net/

Since the emails I'll post might be offensive sometime, I'd like to 
state my knowledge about Mplayer and the people involved in it.

When we designed MCF, we contacted you to help us improve the format, 
with our ears wide open. The results were very poor. And only albeu gave 
us positive critics. Such a good contribution that it lead me to the 
matroska road...

We contacted you because we thought you were the best people with 
general knowledges about all existing containers.

> As for cooperation with the ogg people, it'd be nice, but I don't know
> how realistic this is. All the failed container formats are the result
> of big project/comittee nonsense trying to make an overly 'flexible'
> and 'featureful' standard. MPlayer gets stuff done by writing the code
> and making it work, not by wasting away planning for month after
> month. I think the biggest advantage we'd have in getting this format
> adopted is speed. If it's super-efficient, well-designed, and has a
> working implementation while the MCF and Matroska people are still
> trying to figure out how to put stupid bytecode menus and crap in

Please keep up to date with these projects. Matroska has been in heavy 
development since its launched. And there is already some working code 
to mux and demux stream. This code is already forward compatible with 
anything that will be added in the future.

The specs are now quite stable (even though we are always open to 
changes) and feature rich (no feature is mandatory).