[NUT-devel] [nut]: r644 - docs/nut.txt

[Rich Felker]

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 04:17:09AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:48:37PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:25:12AM +0100, michael wrote:
> > > Author: michael
> > > Date: Fri Feb 29 03:25:11 2008
> > > New Revision: 644
> > > 
> > > Log:
> > > clarify default
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Modified:
> > >    docs/nut.txt
> > > 
> > > Modified: docs/nut.txt
> > > ==============================================================================
> > > --- docs/nut.txt	(original)
> > > +++ docs/nut.txt	Fri Feb 29 03:25:11 2008
> > > @@ -931,7 +931,10 @@ info packet types
> > >          A demuxer MUST ignore unknown language and country codes instead of
> > >          treating them as an error.
> > >      "Disposition"
> > > -        "original", "dub" (translated), "comment", "lyrics", "karaoke", "default"
> > > +        "original", "dub" (translated), "comment", "lyrics", "karaoke",
> > > +        "default"
> > > +            Streams which the creator of the file intended to be played by
> > > +            default. A player can follow this suggestion or ignore it.
> > 
> > IMO this conflicts with the use of Disposition. For example, a stream
> > is very likely both original and default, and it might instead be both
> > dub and default if the person making the file is lame. I would hate to
> > see correct dispositions go unlabelled because the creator of the file
> > thought it more important to impose their idea of what should be
> > default than to correctly label the streams.
> 
> Stream 8
>     Disposition "default"
>     Disposition "lyrics"
>     Disposition "original"
> 
> Stream 9
>     Disposition "lyrics"
>     Disposition "dub"
> 
> No problem here.

Hmm, is more than one copy of the same key valid? And how is that
meant to be interpreted? I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea but I
don't think it's well-specified at this point and I'd like to consider
all the implications...

Rich