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

[gabor]

On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 07:04, ChristianHJW wrote:
> "Michael Niedermayer" <michaelni at gmx.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

> 
> We want this container to last for 10 years. We dont want something 'nice
> and easy' as a quick temporary solution, until the next bad hackery has to
> be done, like what happened to AVI. After all i still dont understand what
> the benefit of having an 'easy' container is. You as a developer may be
> impressed by a container being 'easy' = 'less complex' = 'elegant to code' ,
> but what are the users gaining by using it ? Do they have any benefits by
> using such a container, when compared to matroska ? Our container is trying
> to become a replacement for
> 
> VOB ( DVD )
> WAV/RIFF
> AVI
> 
> And we are still convinced we did a very good job in balancing out
> 
> - compexity
> - features
> - overhead
> - extensability for future use
> 
> Sorry if you cant agree on this idea of ours and prefer more 'simple'
> containers instead. After all, when reading all the ideas and suggestions
> made to this list about your new container, i cant help but get a kind of
> 'deja vu' effect. Many of the stuff you are talking and discussing about
> right now has been talked about more than one year ago .... on the MCF and
> later matroska mailing lists.

hi,


i think there's no way the to parties will come to an agreement :)

matroska people think that the complexity is needed, and
mpcf/nut/whatever-name-it-will-get people think a simple format will be
enough...

let's stop arguing, and let's work on both containers ( easy to say for
someone who won't code it, like me :-)) , after that we can see which
one is more widespread/used...

gabor