Discussion:
[xiph-rtp] Proposal: An extension to rules all others
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
2007-01-15 17:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Proposal: An extension to rules all others

Copyright Notice
None. Public Domain.

Abstract
Extension flamewars surrounding media formats inside Ogg containers
are a pain in the behind, cause problems in the adoption of said
formats, and confuse users. This modest proposal directed at the
maintainers of Vorbis, Theora, Speex and FLAC will suggest a solution
to solve these issues (and others).

1. Introduction
According to Lore, there in ancient days was Ogg, a container for all
kinds of media formats, but for years to come, Ogg had only one
companion, a music box known as Vorbis. Together, the two tried to
battle the evil kingdom of MP3, and though not successful, songs were
composed of Ogg and Vorbis feats. However, misunderstanding arouse,
and the two became associated as one entity: the OGG.

Now, fast-forward to the present. The "OGG" misconception states that
any file with the .ogg extension is "OGG", which is some kind of
nerds-only format for music, or an MP3-wannabe.

Now, we of Xiph know this is bullshit, but this kind of mentality has
spread so widely that it's hurting the Ogg project as a whole, and its
family of formats.

2. The Problems Caused by the OGG disease
When one speaks with the average computer user, the one that may
occasionally check Slashdot (or God forbid, Digg), s/he will tell you
in the world of Open Source (or FOSS) there are two formats for audio:
OGG and FLAC. More or less, s/he has a basic idea of what OGG is:
it's some kind of audio format like MP3, whose name sounds like
caveman speech, and nobody uses. S/he probably likes FLAC, though.
The FLAC fad is yet to come, but its day seems to draw near.

There isn't one problem here; there's several. The person described
above may be a blogger, but he has no idea what Speex is. The person
above may have an iPod, and s/he won't care much for any audio format
other than MP3. S/he won't bother to look for a hardware player with
support for other audio formats, and more importantly, s/he won't even
bother consider nagging Apple about adding support for other formats.
If this person has ever gone to Wikipedia, s/he may have come across
media files with an .ogg extension, but s/he has no idea why it's
labeled as video. "Isn't OGG supposed to be that nerds-only music
format? What's this all about?"

This person will try to make the video work, following the useful
instructions on Wikipedia Media Help page to install illi's codecs,
and so on. The problem is when s/he tries to play it on any MS
Windows player that isn't VLC or RealPlayer. S/he'll be royaly
screwed. What with the majority of the few programs that recognize
the .ogg extension assuming it's Vorbis.

At this point, the person will simply give up. The video wasn't that
important to being with.

However, the person may think, "Hey, other people will have the same
problem too", so s/he will go ahead and complain to Wikipedia about
it. Now make that several people a week, and not only in Wikipedia,
but anywhere else hosting Theora videos. And remember that it's only
the peopler that care. Like 1% of the Internet population, maybe
less. Nobody else cares.

I think there's a lack of consistency and correctness in how the
different developers in Xiph are doing things. We need some unity if
we are ever to take on the world. Not that I'm saying I'm the
Messiah, and I have the answer for everything, or that I know of all
the problems there are (or not). But on this issue, however, I hope
to have your full attention, gentlemen.

3. One extension to rule them all
This title is misleading, because it's not possible to have one single
extension to fix the problems described above. Especially, if one
considers this proposal aims for backward AND forward compatibility.

The proposal isn't perfect, but in my opinion it's a fine step towards
solving some of the problems plaging the projects surrounding Ogg.

I propose that each project (Vorbis, Speex, etc.) states in its
specification two file extensions, and those two extensions are to be
the only ones allowed for that given format. Implementators are
supposed to support both extensions. Content creators are supposed to
choose one of them according to whatever criteria they care about.

Are there arguments against this? Of course there are.

One might say that .avi is always .avi even though it might be MPEG 1,
XviD, DivX, or anything else. Yet, you forget that .avi is ALWAYS for
video, so most software won't complain when they see an .avi file
(except for WMP that complains for everything). The worst that may
happen is for the software to ask the user for the appropriate codecs.
This doesn't happen with .ogg, though, because the Ogg container
might be used for so many different purposes that programs don't have
an uniform way of dealing with .ogg.

Matroska, for instance, specifies .mkv for video/video+audio, and .mka
for audio. This may not be the greatest approach ever, but it works
in real life, and that's what we should aim for.

And yet, there's further opposition? Some may say "extensions don't
matter", but they forget this is a computer world ruled by MS Windows,
where the average user is not smart enough to know what's wrong when
the video or audio file s/he downloaded won't work. Extensions are
needed. Anyone ever saw the UNIX "file" command trying to guess what
type a file is? Extensions are needed.

Now, assuming you guys dig what I say, there's another problem.
Choose a new extension for your project, say .vorbis for Vorbis and we
all know what happens. Existing software will stop playing older
Vorbis streams using the .ogg extension. The solution as I mentioned
above is to allow two extensions, no more, nor less.

Example: .ogg as default, .vorbis as secondary.

OK, but that's for Vorbis. Why should FLAC or Speex care? Because of
consistency. If we want to move Ogg away from the misunderstanding
that it's Vorbis only (the "OGG"), we have to allow .ogg to be used on
FLAC and Speex files. And because of correctness. If we want unity
between our projects, we have to allow .ogg to be used on FLAC and
Speex files.

So, this is what I suggest:
Vorbis: .ogg & .vorbis
Theora: .ogg & .theora (or .video as I've seen suggested several times)
FLAC: .ogg & .flac (yes, I'm fully aware that FLAC can exist without
Ogg, but it's about unity)
Speex: .ogg & .spx
OggPCM: .ogg & .oggpcm
OggUVS: .ogg & .ogguvs

For mixed content of other kinds, like Writ, or crazy combinations of
the above, or external codecs (MPEG 4, whatever), one has accept the
default .ogg only, because it's not possible to state an extension for
every possible use of Ogg. The idea is to allow dual extension on the
most important projects under Xiph.

Notice that most of the suggested extensions are outside 8.3
limitations. It's 2007; we do not need to worry about this anymore.

That list is a suggestion, and this you are reading is a proposal.
It's up for each maintainer to decide if it's viable, or not, but I
ask you to consider it.

This proposal isn't only philosophical. It's about making life easier
for end-users and to tell software that if it supports Speex, then it
needs to look in the current directory for both .ogg and .spx files as
source for Speex streams.

Extensions are meaningless, and .avi sure as hell isn't just "Video
for Windows", so let's make it clear what extensions are allowed for
the different projects under Xiph, even if it's crazy talk.

4. More Solutions
Ralph Giles has been studying the possibility of adding a
"disposition-type" field on the MIME application/ogg. This is an
approach taken by the RSS project, and I believe it's another step in
the right direction. But it's a completely different debate, though
I'm mentioning it, because this and the solution described in this
proposal should both be used. Operating Systems don't care about MIME
types, but care about extensions. On the other hand, HTTP servers
don't care as much about extensions, but care a lot about MIME types.

The RSS project is considering using disposition-type with Dublin Core
attributes like "moving-pictures", "sound" and "mixed". This syntax
may not be most appropriate for Ogg streams, but the idea behind it is
good. Let's take it in consideration.

Example: application/ogg; disposition-type=sound

One more solution to the problem of consistency may be the use of the
name "Ogg family" when referring to the media formats that use Ogg
containers. I think it will help fortify the ties between the
different projects under Xiph, and make easier my job, which is to
promote those projects. Ogg family.

5. In Conclusion
Hi, my name is Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves. I'm new to Xiph.Org, and mostly
unknown. My project is called SpreadOgg. It's an attempt at doing
whatever it's needed to promote the media formats under Xiph.Org.

It was hard for me to write this proposal. Very hard. Because it
forces change, and change is never welcomed. Because it's bold, and
boldness tends to attract enmity. Because it's probably going to be
ignored. And because it may add more complexity to an issue that is
already complex.

But in the end, I thought this issue was important, and here we are.
From what I've heard, whole flame wars regarding extensions have
happened before, and they led to nothing. Why not end this issue once
and for all, and go on with more important matters?

This message is public and is made available in ogg-dev, vorbis-dev,
flac-dev, speex-dev, and theora-dev mailing lists. Although it's
directed at the maintainers of these projects, casual readers of the
mailing lists may discuss this proposal if they wish, but please make
sure the contribution is significant and/or useful. More ranting is
pretty much unnecessary.

Que seja o que Deus quiser.
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
2007-01-16 13:23:27 UTC
Permalink
There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent on preventing uptake
of other formats.
I've been thinking about that. Considering Apple is an American
company, can't they be liable for an anti-trust case against other
formats? They do have an interest in keeping little competition in
AAC'a territory.
First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming out shortly,
does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's predecessors?
I've not heard of anything in that regard. Actually, I'm not sure it
would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new version of DOS.
Although, I did hear something about a new completely different
Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that would be affected by
8.3 limits.
Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end users are less
computer literate (yes more people can type, but a decreasing
proportion understand how their computers work, maybe I should say
the quality of computer literacy is decreasing). They don't care
about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods), what they do
care about is branding. I immediately thought about being flippant
and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only and .avi for
Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem. But, that would
make Xiph the bad guys...
However there's something to this idea; it recognises the recognition
that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to load someone's iPod
for them I suspect there may be quite a few people using iPods
.music (Vorbis)
.video (Theora + audio)
.voice (Speex)
.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
I really am serious. They're unused (AFAIK), they tell you about
content. If people start trying to call other things .music (or
similar), then they'll run into any extension problems, and if
MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't working
complaining they are more likely to try and do something about that
than they have been to act on Ogg.
The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding, though I think this
is more important for content publishers than consumers.
Yes! Your extensions list is actually more sensible than mine. This
is aggresive marketing! And it can work. As long as software
developers are warned to support both new and legacy extensions, and
content developers encouraged to use the new extensions, it might just
work. Pretty much, it's still a dual extension proposal, but with
foresight of promotion and locking illiterate users to think .music is
actually music, and .video is actually video, and nothing else.

And I'm sure audiophiles will be happy with .music-perfect.

What do others think? Monty, Josh, Ralph, Jean-Marc, Mike? Do any of
you agree on this proposal?

The intent to get rid of extension flamewars due to exclusive use
of.ogg is still here. Other priorities at work here are promotion and
clear confusion from the part of users.

-Ivo

P.S: There's still the disposition-type proposal to discuss. Should
we schedule a Monthly Meeting to discuss this and the above?
Aaron Colwell
2007-01-16 15:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Hopefully this doesn't spawn another flame war...

These extensions seem pretty presumptuous.
.music (Vorbis)
.video (Theora + audio)
.voice (Speex)
.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
What happens when a new audio/video codec is added to the mix? A new extension?

What would be the extension for a chained file that contains audio-only and
A/V segments? (My _favorite_ corner case in the ogg format. :| )


What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo model?
.oga (Vorbis, Speex)
.ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)

Why do we need a new extension for FLAC?

I understand the desire to use seperate extensions to differentiate audio-only
from video files. Why do we need furthur differentiation based on codec?
Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if they really need to
determine which codec it contains. If people really want to use different
applications for each codec then let them deal with the headaches of making
that happen. Don't burden the masses with a ton of extensions just to appease
a select few.

Proliferation of a bunch of new extensions will only confuse users in my
opinion.

Aaron
There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent on preventing uptake
of other formats.
I've been thinking about that. Considering Apple is an American
company, can't they be liable for an anti-trust case against other
formats? They do have an interest in keeping little competition in
AAC'a territory.
First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming out shortly,
does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's predecessors?
I've not heard of anything in that regard. Actually, I'm not sure it
would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new version of DOS.
Although, I did hear something about a new completely different
Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that would be affected by
8.3 limits.
Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end users are less
computer literate (yes more people can type, but a decreasing
proportion understand how their computers work, maybe I should say
the quality of computer literacy is decreasing). They don't care
about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods), what they do
care about is branding. I immediately thought about being flippant
and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only and .avi for
Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem. But, that would
make Xiph the bad guys...
However there's something to this idea; it recognises the recognition
that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to load someone's iPod
for them I suspect there may be quite a few people using iPods
.music (Vorbis)
.video (Theora + audio)
.voice (Speex)
.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
I really am serious. They're unused (AFAIK), they tell you about
content. If people start trying to call other things .music (or
similar), then they'll run into any extension problems, and if
MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't working
complaining they are more likely to try and do something about that
than they have been to act on Ogg.
The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding, though I think this
is more important for content publishers than consumers.
Yes! Your extensions list is actually more sensible than mine. This
is aggresive marketing! And it can work. As long as software
developers are warned to support both new and legacy extensions, and
content developers encouraged to use the new extensions, it might just
work. Pretty much, it's still a dual extension proposal, but with
foresight of promotion and locking illiterate users to think .music is
actually music, and .video is actually video, and nothing else.
And I'm sure audiophiles will be happy with .music-perfect.
What do others think? Monty, Josh, Ralph, Jean-Marc, Mike? Do any of
you agree on this proposal?
The intent to get rid of extension flamewars due to exclusive use
of.ogg is still here. Other priorities at work here are promotion and
clear confusion from the part of users.
-Ivo
P.S: There's still the disposition-type proposal to discuss. Should
we schedule a Monthly Meeting to discuss this and the above?
_______________________________________________
xiph-rtp mailing list
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
2007-01-17 12:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aaron Colwell
What happens when a new audio/video codec is added to the mix? A new extension?
Nope. As stated in the original message, it's not possible to guess
all kinds of combinations that may go inside an Ogg container, nor
what kind of new formats Xiph may develop in the future (Holy Ghost
Batman!).

This proposal is aimed at the more important formats in the Ogg
family, those that need to be marketed aggressively, those that are to
be used by the average joe.
Post by Aaron Colwell
What would be the extension for a chained file that contains audio-only
and A/V segments? (My _favorite_ corner case in the ogg format. :| )
.ogg

It falls under the mixed bag category mentioned above.
Post by Aaron Colwell
What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo model?
.oga (Vorbis, Speex)
.ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)
All kinds of things are wrong there. Those extensions use a three
letter namespace, they are hard to remember, easy to confuse, and
moreover they tell the user nothing much about what the file is
supposed to be about.
Post by Aaron Colwell
Why do we need a new extension for FLAC?
Ian proposed a new extension for FLAC. I, on the other hand, believe
FLAC players should accept .ogg as possible container for FLAC, as
right now they don't. And the idea of Ogg FLAC has been around for
quite a while.

Although .music-perfect has a nice sound to it, it's possibly too
large for an extension. Of course that applies to .video-perfect as
well, but those are so far only a suggestion asking for feedback.

Personally, I stand behind .video, .music and .voice. It's simply perfect.

It's a shame that we are apparently going over yet another extension
flamewar, but things as they are, are not all right. There wouldn't
be this kind of talk all the time if things were okay. Let's hope a
consensus is achieved soon, because there's far more important things
to fix around here.
Post by Aaron Colwell
Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if they really need to
determine which codec it contains.
If this were true in all (or most) cases, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Post by Aaron Colwell
Don't burden the masses with a ton of extensions just to appease
a select few. Proliferation of a bunch of new extensions will only
confuse users in my opinion.
Although I respect your opinion, I believe it's just the other way
around. Moving away from legacy extensions, and in the process trying
to unite more the projects under Xiph will only benefit users. Those
extensions are the kind easy enough to remember that if one day they
become mainstream, people will look with suspicion at things like
.wmv, .avi and .acc. It just makes no sense.

Since players are (in theory) supposed to accept legacy extensions for
backwards-compatibility, the (few) people right now that care about
the Ogg family will not mind the change, as their old media will still
play well.

Finally, I also believe that this change means also a change of
attitude from Xiph. Many in the industry, or even in the
mailing-lists here, have quite a few times pointed out that we are not
promoting our projects well, or even at all. This, I hope, is a step
in the right direction.
Post by Aaron Colwell
Also consider that the extensions and an associated mimetype will need
to be ratified by the IETF to become "standard". They would never
agree to these extensions since they are too broad.
This might be the only problem I've seen so far, and even then, I'm
not sure it's really a problem. As far as I understand how the RFC
process works, extensions shouldn't mean much. Regarding, MIME issues
though, I'll mention (again) Ralph's disposition-type proposal. Since
to me it doesn't seem like it breaks any application that relies on
application/ogg, I doubt the IETF will oppose that.

Best wishes,
Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves
Silvia Pfeiffer
2007-01-17 20:26:44 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Aaron.

Also consider that the extensions and an associated mimetype will need
to be ratified by the IETF to become "standard". They would never
agree to these extensions since they are too broad.

And I like ".oga" and ".ogv" - they are simple for the user to
understand which application to try and throw at it.

Silvia.
Post by Aaron Colwell
Hopefully this doesn't spawn another flame war...
These extensions seem pretty presumptuous.
.music (Vorbis)
.video (Theora + audio)
.voice (Speex)
.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
What happens when a new audio/video codec is added to the mix? A new extension?
What would be the extension for a chained file that contains audio-only and
A/V segments? (My _favorite_ corner case in the ogg format. :| )
What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo model?
.oga (Vorbis, Speex)
.ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)
Why do we need a new extension for FLAC?
I understand the desire to use seperate extensions to differentiate audio-only
from video files. Why do we need furthur differentiation based on codec?
Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if they really need to
determine which codec it contains. If people really want to use different
applications for each codec then let them deal with the headaches of making
that happen. Don't burden the masses with a ton of extensions just to appease
a select few.
Proliferation of a bunch of new extensions will only confuse users in my
opinion.
Aaron
There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent on preventing uptake
of other formats.
I've been thinking about that. Considering Apple is an American
company, can't they be liable for an anti-trust case against other
formats? They do have an interest in keeping little competition in
AAC'a territory.
First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming out shortly,
does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's predecessors?
I've not heard of anything in that regard. Actually, I'm not sure it
would make sense for Microsoft to develop a new version of DOS.
Although, I did hear something about a new completely different
Command Line in Windows Vista, but I doubt that would be affected by
8.3 limits.
Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end users are less
computer literate (yes more people can type, but a decreasing
proportion understand how their computers work, maybe I should say
the quality of computer literacy is decreasing). They don't care
about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods), what they do
care about is branding. I immediately thought about being flippant
and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only and .avi for
Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem. But, that would
make Xiph the bad guys...
However there's something to this idea; it recognises the recognition
that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to load someone's iPod
for them I suspect there may be quite a few people using iPods
.music (Vorbis)
.video (Theora + audio)
.voice (Speex)
.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?
I really am serious. They're unused (AFAIK), they tell you about
content. If people start trying to call other things .music (or
similar), then they'll run into any extension problems, and if
MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't working
complaining they are more likely to try and do something about that
than they have been to act on Ogg.
The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding, though I think this
is more important for content publishers than consumers.
Yes! Your extensions list is actually more sensible than mine. This
is aggresive marketing! And it can work. As long as software
developers are warned to support both new and legacy extensions, and
content developers encouraged to use the new extensions, it might just
work. Pretty much, it's still a dual extension proposal, but with
foresight of promotion and locking illiterate users to think .music is
actually music, and .video is actually video, and nothing else.
And I'm sure audiophiles will be happy with .music-perfect.
What do others think? Monty, Josh, Ralph, Jean-Marc, Mike? Do any of
you agree on this proposal?
The intent to get rid of extension flamewars due to exclusive use
of.ogg is still here. Other priorities at work here are promotion and
clear confusion from the part of users.
-Ivo
P.S: There's still the disposition-type proposal to discuss. Should
we schedule a Monthly Meeting to discuss this and the above?
_______________________________________________
xiph-rtp mailing list
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
_______________________________________________
xiph-rtp mailing list
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
Silvia Pfeiffer
2007-02-23 15:00:01 UTC
Permalink
An addition of the MIME type to the first Ogg page doesn't make much
sense, since that Ogg page already belongs to one of the logical
bitstreams in the stream.

We had a long discussion about how to do this right when developing
the Annodex format
(http://annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-annodex-02.txt), which has been
built to provide this functionality and others.

In the end, we defined what is now know as "skeleton"
(http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Ogg_Skeleton) and as an additional
logical bitstream at the beginning of an Ogg file that contains
information o the other logical bitstreams inside the Ogg file.

This is the only way to provide this information without breaking
existing specifications.

However, it requires that Ogg parsing software be adapted to also
parse Skeleton.

Some of the software has already been adapted for it - others hasn't.

Silvia.
Post by Aaron Colwell
Media applications are able to deeply inspect the file if they really need to
determine which codec it contains.
In case of Ogg, the application is unfortunately only able to determine
which codec(s) the Ogg file contains if detailed knowledge about the
codecs is known already by the Ogg parser. I think I already suggested
to e.g. add the stream's MIME type to the first Ogg page to make it
easier for players to cope with new codecs embedded in an Ogg file.
Tor
_______________________________________________
Vorbis-dev mailing list
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis-dev
Ian Malone
2007-01-17 20:26:43 UTC
Permalink
(Ah... followups to ogg-dev...)

(I've got a couple of tiny comments but they're not important,
they do however tie into my main point at the bottom.)
Post by Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
Proposal: An extension to rules all others
Copyright Notice
None. Public Domain.
There isn't one problem here; there's several. The person described
above may be a blogger, but he has no idea what Speex is. The person
Rather kind to ascribe technological competence simply because the
person is a blogger...
Post by Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
above may have an iPod, and s/he won't care much for any audio format
other than MP3. S/he won't bother to look for a hardware player with
support for other audio formats, and more importantly, s/he won't even
bother consider nagging Apple about adding support for other formats.
There is a point of view that Apple is quite bent on preventing uptake
of other formats.

<snip explanation of the problems caused by one extension combined
with poor support for shared extensions>
Post by Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
I propose that each project (Vorbis, Speex, etc.) states in its
specification two file extensions, and those two extensions are to be
the only ones allowed for that given format. Implementators are
supposed to support both extensions. Content creators are supposed to
choose one of them according to whatever criteria they care about.
Part of the problem you describe is in implementation, so I suspect
that you can't really rely on implementors.
Post by Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
Are there arguments against this? Of course there are.
One might say that .avi is always .avi even though it might be MPEG 1,
XviD, DivX, or anything else. Yet, you forget that .avi is ALWAYS for
video, so most software won't complain when they see an .avi file
(except for WMP that complains for everything). The worst that may
happen is for the software to ask the user for the appropriate codecs.
This doesn't happen with .ogg, though, because the Ogg container
might be used for so many different purposes that programs don't have
an uniform way of dealing with .ogg.
Matroska, for instance, specifies .mkv for video/video+audio, and .mka
for audio. This may not be the greatest approach ever, but it works
in real life, and that's what we should aim for.
See <http://xiph.org/minutes/2006/10/200610_meeting.txt>, there doesn't
really seem to be any resistance to doing something, the question is
really what.

<Okay, next bit is long, leaving it in for context>
Post by Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
And yet, there's further opposition? Some may say "extensions don't
matter", but they forget this is a computer world ruled by MS Windows,
where the average user is not smart enough to know what's wrong when
the video or audio file s/he downloaded won't work. Extensions are
needed. Anyone ever saw the UNIX "file" command trying to guess what
type a file is? Extensions are needed.
Now, assuming you guys dig what I say, there's another problem.
Choose a new extension for your project, say .vorbis for Vorbis and we
all know what happens. Existing software will stop playing older
Vorbis streams using the .ogg extension. The solution as I mentioned
above is to allow two extensions, no more, nor less.
Example: .ogg as default, .vorbis as secondary.
OK, but that's for Vorbis. Why should FLAC or Speex care? Because of
consistency. If we want to move Ogg away from the misunderstanding
that it's Vorbis only (the "OGG"), we have to allow .ogg to be used on
FLAC and Speex files. And because of correctness. If we want unity
between our projects, we have to allow .ogg to be used on FLAC and
Speex files.
Vorbis: .ogg & .vorbis
Theora: .ogg & .theora (or .video as I've seen suggested several times)
FLAC: .ogg & .flac (yes, I'm fully aware that FLAC can exist without
Ogg, but it's about unity)
Speex: .ogg & .spx
OggPCM: .ogg & .oggpcm
OggUVS: .ogg & .ogguvs
For mixed content of other kinds, like Writ, or crazy combinations of
the above, or external codecs (MPEG 4, whatever), one has accept the
default .ogg only, because it's not possible to state an extension for
every possible use of Ogg. The idea is to allow dual extension on the
most important projects under Xiph.
Notice that most of the suggested extensions are outside 8.3
limitations. It's 2007; we do not need to worry about this anymore.
That list is a suggestion, and this you are reading is a proposal.
It's up for each maintainer to decide if it's viable, or not, but I
ask you to consider it.
This proposal isn't only philosophical. It's about making life easier
for end-users and to tell software that if it supports Speex, then it
needs to look in the current directory for both .ogg and .spx files as
source for Speex streams.
Extensions are meaningless, and .avi sure as hell isn't just "Video
for Windows", so let's make it clear what extensions are allowed for
the different projects under Xiph, even if it's crazy talk.
First, there is apparently a new version of MS DOS coming out shortly,
does anyone know if it is any more sensible than it's predecessors?
It may be worth finding out. Do Macs care? I don't believe Linux
does, so it's Windows that's the problem (and it is a big problem,
market share and all that), but Windows is Windows Media Player, so
if that has caught up with the rest of the world there's less need to
worry.

Secondly, it's become increasingly clear that end users are less
computer literate (yes more people can type, but a decreasing
proportion understand how their computers work, maybe I should say
the quality of copmuter literacy is decreasing). They don't care
about technologies (or people wouldn't use iPods), what they do
care about is branding. I immediately thought about being flippant
and suggesting .mp3 for Ogg containing audio only and .avi for
Ogg containing .avi, making it the WMP's problem. But, that would
make Xiph the bad guys...

However there's something to this idea; it recognises the recognition
that .avi and .mp3 posses (having recently had to load someone's iPod
for them I suspect there may be quite a few people using iPods
thinking that mp3 is aac). So what about:
.music (Vorbis)
.video (Theora + audio)
.voice (Speex)
.music-perfect + .voice-perfect (FLAC & PCM)
.video-perfect (Lossless video codecs + audio)?

I really am serious. They're unused (AFAIK), they tell you about
content. If people start trying to call other things .music (or
similar), then they'll run into any extension problems, and if
MS suddenly find people whose mp3, wma etc. isn't working
complaining they are more likely to try and do something about that
than they have been to act on Ogg.

The downside is losing the Ogg/codec branding, though I think this
is more important for content publishers than consumers.
--
imalone
Tom Grandgent
2007-01-17 20:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, but I think generic extension names are far from perfect. Here
are some additional problems to consider:

1) Language. When people talk about file types, they almost never
say "dot" at the beginning. They say "MP3 files". For example, "Does
that player support MP3 files?" If you have an extension of ".music"
this ends up being "Does that player support music files?" Which is
useless, of course.

2) Search. In this age of search, it's essential to give things
unique names so that people can find information on them. If someone
gets a .music or .voice file from somewhere and can't play it, do you
think they're going to have much luck searching for info on the format?

3) Attitude. Promotion is one thing, but trying to claim such generic
names in the name of open source is simply arrogant, I think.

4) Confusion about purpose. When it comes to audio, your proposed
names are .music and .voice. What happens when some content falls into
both categories, or neither? Example 1: Sound effects for a game.
They'd have to be called .music, which is confusing. Example 2: A
podcast with a little bit of music at the beginning and end, but all
voice in the middle. If they're not willing to take a big quality hit
on the music, they'd have to make it .music. Again, confusing. It's
better to have .ogg (associated with music and high quality audio)
and .spx (associated with efficient encoding of speech).

Finally, I disagree with your assessment of .oga/.ogv on all counts.
Three letter extensions are good for many reasons: easy to display,
easy to read, easy to type, and overall it's a familiar, consistent,
and tried-and-true approach. I also don't see how they're hard to
remember (people are quite used to remembering TLAs), especially if
they follow a logical and consistent naming convention like .oga/.ogv.

As for not telling what the file is about, it seems more helpful to me
for the extension to differentiate between formats as opposed to media
types. People usually have at least a hint about media type from
context (i.e. where the file came from, what the name before the dot
is, file size), but they usually don't have any such guidance when it
comes to format.

So, in my opinion, Xiph format adoption is best advanced by continuing
to promote OGG as an MP3 alternative while following established
conventions in introducing additional extensions.

I hope you will consider this as feedback and not flames.

Tom
Post by Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
Post by Aaron Colwell
What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo model?
.oga (Vorbis, Speex)
.ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)
All kinds of things are wrong there. Those extensions use a three
letter namespace, they are hard to remember, easy to confuse, and
moreover they tell the user nothing much about what the file is
supposed to be about.
...
Although .music-perfect has a nice sound to it, it's possibly too
large for an extension. Of course that applies to .video-perfect as
well, but those are so far only a suggestion asking for feedback.
Personally, I stand behind .video, .music and .voice. It's simply perfect.
It's a shame that we are apparently going over yet another extension
flamewar, but things as they are, are not all right. There wouldn't
be this kind of talk all the time if things were okay. Let's hope a
consensus is achieved soon, because there's far more important things
to fix around here.
...
Finally, I also believe that this change means also a change of
attitude from Xiph. Many in the industry, or even in the
mailing-lists here, have quite a few times pointed out that we are not
promoting our projects well, or even at all. This, I hope, is a step
in the right direction.
Ian Malone
2007-02-23 15:00:02 UTC
Permalink
(What list should this be on? I realise some of these lists are
to get attention from slightly peripheral groups, but should it
be moved to ogg-dev/advocacy?)
Post by Tom Grandgent
Sorry, but I think generic extension names are far from perfect. Here
<snip perfectly sensible objections>
The reason I made the suggestions I did is that extensions aren't really
a technical issue, except for one (unfortunately major) player which I'm
led to believe needs to be told content type through the extension, but
a PR one. So what needs to be considered is how well the extensions
communicate.
Post by Tom Grandgent
Finally, I disagree with your assessment of .oga/.ogv on all counts.
Three letter extensions are good for many reasons: easy to display,
easy to read, easy to type, and overall it's a familiar, consistent,
and tried-and-true approach. I also don't see how they're hard to
remember (people are quite used to remembering TLAs), especially if
they follow a logical and consistent naming convention like .oga/.ogv.
They're not hard to remember, if you have to remember them.
Most people don't seem to, and shouldn't really have to.
--
imalone
Ian Malone
2007-05-06 11:02:16 UTC
Permalink
On 11/02/07, Ian Malone <***@gmail.com> wrote:
<baulks slightly on remembering how many lists this goes to
and a decent number I'm not subscribed to...>
Post by Ian Malone
(What list should this be on? I realise some of these lists are
to get attention from slightly peripheral groups, but should it
be moved to ogg-dev/advocacy?)
Post by Tom Grandgent
Sorry, but I think generic extension names are far from perfect. Here
<snippery>
Post by Ian Malone
Post by Tom Grandgent
Finally, I disagree with your assessment of .oga/.ogv on all counts.
Three letter extensions are good for many reasons: easy to display,
easy to read, easy to type, and overall it's a familiar, consistent,
and tried-and-true approach. I also don't see how they're hard to
remember (people are quite used to remembering TLAs), especially if
they follow a logical and consistent naming convention like .oga/.ogv.
A recent thread on fedora-list[1] got into the extensions discussion and
reminded me that this hadn't reached a definite conclusion here.
The points I remember that came out were:

(Comments apply to Ogg physical streams stored in files)
* The main desire is to differentiate the extensions for streams
containing A/V and A only.
* Extensions depending on the codec type aren't a great idea.
* A simple scheme is preferred.

The more marketing oriented suggestions are potentially confusing
and not likely to be accepted readily, this leaves us with two schemes
that were popular:

.oga / .ogv (new extensions, with .ogg remaining for legacy and corner
case uses)
.ogg / .ogm (legacy extensions, possible drawback in not leaving
room for corner cases and requiring existing files to be renamed.
I got the impression the existing .ogm was something of a hack)

I'll add:
.oggaudio, .oggvideo
with the argument that it provides recognition as connected with
the current .ogg extension and quietly educates end users about
different applications for the format (which provides a little mental
backward compatibility).

[1] "Why is Fedora a multimedia disaster? - Here is why."
<https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-April/msg01825.html>
--
imalone
Michael Sparks
2007-01-17 20:26:44 UTC
Permalink
[ Replying to the digest of xiph-rtp-***@xiph.org where I saw this, if the
quoting/reply list looks odd, I've trimmed down the "I'm mailing everyone"
address list. ]

I've been lurking watching this discussion, and when I originally saw it, I
was baffled - ogg does already have an extension to rule all others - .ogg
for better or worse, it matches all ogg format files.

Given the argument was to better hint at the file contents, I thought this
Post by Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
Post by Aaron Colwell
What is wrong with the MP4/Matroska/Windows Media/RealVideo model?
.oga (Vorbis, Speex)
.ogv (Theora, Theora + Vorbis, Theora + Speex, Tarkin, etc)
The biggest argument against this that I saw is that this is aesthetically
bad, and had no place in an open standard. However, if that's the case, why
would the OASIS - the group leading the Open Document Format which
OpenOffice.org uses, standardise on the following endings:

* .odg - open document format, graphical
* .odp - open document format, presentation
* .odt - open document format, text
* .ods - open document format, spreadsheet.

The reason is simple it has a basic stem which is clear, and can be used, in
a limited fashion to differentiate based on a .odX stem. Whilst I've not seen
it, I wouldn't be too surprised if MXF (another open standard) was used in
conjunction with ODF to define an ODF format for audio and video. If that
was the case, then I'd expect those to look like:
* .oda
* .odv

Why is 8.3 *still* important decades after it shouldn't be? Because a number
of common file systems which are widely deployed still have 8.3 as their
basic underlying file system. Remember, without using certain extensions
(though widely used, they are extensions) CDROMs would be limited to 8.3.
Certain personal cdrom players that play vorbis, amongst others, are well
within their rights to only accept such CDs. Also, like many other things
they'd look at the file extension

It's got *nothing* to do with pandering to proprietary whims, which I suspect
is being reacted against, but everything to do with *practicality*.

Regarding the arguments in favour of:
* .music
* .voice
* .video
* .music-perfect
* .video-perfect
* .voice-perfect

You have to remember that this is hideously painful if you're running a
webserver and causes problems on the client side. Many webservers detect the
mime type of an object based on filename extension. In order to send the
header (for example) text/html for a random HTML file, many webservers look
at the extension, and look it up in a table, and send out the file.

Now, if NO ONE had ever chosen to create files of these kinds before, then
maybe. However the reality is there are many container formats, many codecs,
and which player you launch really depends on the file format. (In some
respects, this is something Microsoft did that was quite sneaky with their
extension for DOCument formats. However, that was _relatively_ early on,
rather than this late in the game)

Sending the correct MIME type enables the client browser (or OS if delegated
to the OS) to choose the correct application to launch.

So what this actually means is that a server, based on looking at the filename
alone, could not guarantee the file format or codec type. In practical terms
this means either the client gets a generic MIME type (as you do at present
with .ogg, which *is* less than ideal, but that's life :), or you have to
start looking at file magic numbers[1] when serving content (killing
performance), or add a requirement to store metadata separately on the FS for
performance (requiring rewriting servers).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_format#Magic_number

I understand the basic desire here, but it comes across as naive. Also, not
all audio is music OR voice. Much is a mixture, some is neither. If you
*really* wanted these you'd have to do .audio or .audio-perfect.

(BTW, the content disposition idea here is irrelevent when it comes to the
idea of identifying *as quickly as possible* the correct/most useful MIME
type)

**My personal view is either don't change it** .ogg isn't really that bad,
(even if it could be better).

Or if you much change it, change it such that .ogg for video is deprecated,
recommend .ogv for ogg format files with video inside (preferably *with*
audio), and recommend .oga for audio only files. (The only minor foible here
would be for legacy audio players that would only see .ogg and assume those
are contain vorbis)
Post by Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
Finally, I also believe that this change means also a change of
attitude from Xiph. Many in the industry, or even in the
mailing-lists here, have quite a few times pointed out that we are not
promoting our projects well, or even at all. This, I hope, is a step
in the right direction.
By promoting .music/.music-perfect/etc you would instantly turn off a
large number of people you seem to want to promote to. It's hard enough to
get acceptance of these formats without changing from one extreme ("ogg?
huh? what's that? A caveman come up with the name?") to another
(".music? .video? Who came up with that ?" - I doubt it'd be that
polite however...).

After all, remember you're not just hinting to a person, you're hinting to a
machine. The more information you can encode cleanly whilst taking legacy
into account, the better. (hence my view above about .ogg (with video)
-> .ogv and .ogg -> (.ogg & .oga) ).

I must admit I'd also like to see:
* .ogr - Ogg Rich - which would be multiple audio & video streams in
the same file for things like audio description and multi-language
subtitles, and alternate audio tracks. (I'm not convinced ogg is
actually the right sort of format for that sort of thing anyway
though)

But that's a pipedream anyway...

Also, finally regarding .ogr/oga.ogv/etc. Bear in mind that the average user
actually uses a GUI to interact with their content, and often one that gives
them a pretty picture to indicate content type. Far more informative to the
many people round the world for whom ".music" is just as unintelligible as
".ogm" might be.

Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth,


Michael.
--
Michael Sparks, Senior Research Engineer, BBC Research, Technology Group
***@rd.bbc.co.uk, Kamaelia Project Lead, http://kamaelia.sf.net/
New Broadcasting House, BBC Manchester, M60 1SJ, +44 (0) 161 24 44323
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...