Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Saoshyant
Hi,

I started a discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Media but I decided to
re-post it here and see what should or should not be done about it.

I believe Ogg Theora files in commons should have their extension
changed.  I've seen that some users have a lot of problems when
dealing with Theora video files, one of the biggest is the file
extension. The .ogg file extension normally applies to audio, so in
most operating systems a user downloads the file and the audio player
starts it, because .ogg is associated with it. This is a big problem,
because the average user won't know s/he should be using a video
player instead.

Unofficially, the .ogm extension is used for Theora in many places
over the Internet, and this is a good idea, because many video players
can recognize this extension as theirs.

I believe this issue should at least get a voting, if not a proper
discussion. Should Jimbo Wales be contacted?

Regards,
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/2/06, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> Unofficially, the .ogm extension is used for Theora in many places
> over the Internet, and this is a good idea, because many video players
> can recognize this extension as theirs.

No. OGM files are used for MPEG4 video (patented) + Vorbis wrapped in OGG.

The better solution for this, esp for video, is Michael Dales inline
player for Mediawiki.

For the purposes of usability going half-way just doesn't provide the benefits.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Saoshyant
Gregory, thanks for the reply.

On 10/2/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> No. OGM files are used for MPEG4 video (patented) + Vorbis wrapped in OGG.

Are you sure about this?  I've not seen this in the wild as of yet.

> The better solution for this, esp for video, is Michael Dales inline
> player for Mediawiki.

Does this player work well?  Could you offer a link?  I've not see it
in action yet.

> For the purposes of usability going half-way just doesn't provide the benefits.

Agreed, but I thought something had to be done.  Thus, this discussion.

Maybe this discussion will lead to something else: another solution,
an improved solution, or probably one more solution.

Regards,
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/2/06, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Gregory, thanks for the reply.
>
> On 10/2/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > No. OGM files are used for MPEG4 video (patented) + Vorbis wrapped in OGG.
>
> Are you sure about this?  I've not seen this in the wild as of yet.

Yes.  Perhaps you just didn't realize the OGM files you saw contained
propritary codecs. Most software that will play Ogg/Theora will also
play the Ogg/Xvid.

Even Wikipedia knows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_Media

> > The better solution for this, esp for video, is Michael Dales inline
> > player for Mediawiki.
>
> Does this player work well?  Could you offer a link?  I've not see it
> in action yet.

It's checked into SVN, at least partially. It's not done yet. It was
demonstrated at Wikimania.  Google for Michael Dale SOC or something
like that. :)

> > For the purposes of usability going half-way just doesn't provide the benefits.
>
> Agreed, but I thought something had to be done.  Thus, this discussion.
>
> Maybe this discussion will lead to something else: another solution,
> an improved solution, or probably one more solution.

Sounds good to me.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:46:34AM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 10/2/06, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Unofficially, the .ogm extension is used for Theora in many places
> > over the Internet, and this is a good idea, because many video players
> > can recognize this extension as theirs.
>
> No. OGM files are used for MPEG4 video (patented) + Vorbis wrapped in OGG.
>
> The better solution for this, esp for video, is Michael Dales inline
> player for Mediawiki.
>
> For the purposes of usability going half-way just doesn't provide the benefits.

That answer *sounds* like it implies that such a server-provided player
would *override* a locally installed player, thus (as so often happens)
penalizing the smart people in favor of the stupid ones.  

Is that actually what it implies?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

        "That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
          they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/2/06, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
 > That answer *sounds* like it implies that such a server-provided player
> would *override* a locally installed player, thus (as so often happens)
> penalizing the smart people in favor of the stupid ones.
>
> Is that actually what it implies?

Yuck, no.

The extension gives you the option to play in your browser, the click
to download/play locally link will remain.

If you have the appropriate extension for native inline playing (the
VLC extension, or some future firefox Ogg support that we muse about
getting mozilla to include) it will be used when you activate the
inline player.   Iff you ask for inline playback and you do not have
the approiate extension installed you will then be given the server
provided Java based player.

For most of Wikimedia's uses inline use is probably the most useful
and expected behavior (since the audio / video is part of the content
of the pages, just like with images)... but it wouldn't make any sense
to change things in a way which precludes non-inline use and it
certantly wouldn't make any sense to use a java based player over a
native one.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Tim Starling
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 10/2/06, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>Unofficially, the .ogm extension is used for Theora in many places
>>over the Internet, and this is a good idea, because many video players
>>can recognize this extension as theirs.
>
>
> No. OGM files are used for MPEG4 video (patented) + Vorbis wrapped in OGG.

I read on the Theora mailing list a suggestion that .ogv can be used for
video, and .oga for audio.

http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2005-May/000862.html

I'm yet to see a real-world example of .ogv being used, though.

> The better solution for this, esp for video, is Michael Dales inline
> player for Mediawiki.
>
> For the purposes of usability going half-way just doesn't provide the benefits.

In MediaWiki, we can detect the file type on upload and store it in the
DB. Then we can use that information in the DB to output the appropriate
HTML, if indeed a different player is required. But there is a clear
benefit to the ability to distinguish audio from video, after the user
downloads the file to their computer. In fact, I'm surprised .ogg is
used for video so widely given the obvious benefit of a discriminated
type, in this environment. Even if you use the same player for both
audio and video, it's nice to know what's what when you're looking at a
big list of files.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/2/06, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> In MediaWiki, we can detect the file type on upload and store it in the
> DB. Then we can use that information in the DB to output the appropriate
> HTML, if indeed a different player is required. But there is a clear
> benefit to the ability to distinguish audio from video, after the user
> downloads the file to their computer. In fact, I'm surprised .ogg is
> used for video so widely given the obvious benefit of a discriminated
> type, in this environment. Even if you use the same player for both
> audio and video, it's nice to know what's what when you're looking at a
> big list of files.

Well there are tens of thousands of permutations of things that can go
inside an ogg container..

Any combination of any number of streams made from:
Theora (compressed video)
Tarkin (compressed video)
Dirac (compressed video)
UVS (YUV 4:2:2 uncompressed video)
Vorbis (lossily compressed audio (up to 256 channels))
Speex (lossily compressed audio, tuned for speech)
Flac (losslessly compressed audio)
PCM (uncompressed audio)
Writ (efficient subtitles)
Annodex (realtime XML stream)
MIDI

Plus a number of less supported things
MPEG4 (via xvid, often called OGM)
MP3
AAC
DTS

Ogg can multiplex any number of these streams in any mixture. A proper
player is able to play only the streams it understands and skip the
rest (although quite a few explicitly catch that case and abort... but
the reference libogg stuff does the right thing).

So, would you propose that each permutation get its own extension?
Which subset?

Proper desktop systems have been doing the right thing for ages now,
for example the Gnome file manager doohicky (nautilus) correctly shows
a thumbnail and movie strip views on video files, while it shows a
music icon on audio files.

Even Windows Vista can happily differentiate files with file magic...

Extensions are just too inflexible to match up with reality... Ogg
isn't at all the only container to give up on that.. for example, what
extension does a PDF of layed out ascii have? A PDF of scanned pages?
A PDF of postscript algorithms that computes fractals?
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Tim Starling-2
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 10/2/06, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> In MediaWiki, we can detect the file type on upload and store it in the
>> DB. Then we can use that information in the DB to output the appropriate
>> HTML, if indeed a different player is required. But there is a clear
>> benefit to the ability to distinguish audio from video, after the user
>> downloads the file to their computer. In fact, I'm surprised .ogg is
>> used for video so widely given the obvious benefit of a discriminated
>> type, in this environment. Even if you use the same player for both
>> audio and video, it's nice to know what's what when you're looking at a
>> big list of files.
>
> Well there are tens of thousands of permutations of things that can go
> inside an ogg container..

I know, I've read the spec. But presumably it is fairly rare for Ogg files
to consist of chained audio and video streams. Most Ogg files can be easily
categorised as either audio or video. It's not a problem that you can
construct a file which can't be, and it's not a problem that at present, it
may be difficult to automatically distinguish between the two.

We *can* automatically distinguish between the two in most cases, with a
simple heuristic test. You can just read all the stream headers and see if
any of them are video.

For audio you could validate the stream against the Vorbis I audio file
specification, although it's unclear to me whether the user would care about
such a designation.

I'm not suggesting that there should be an extension for every permutation.
I'm just suggesting that for files which are clearly video files, .ogv would
be an appropriate extension. There are two important applications for .ogg,
audio and video, is it really so horrible to suggest that one of them might
deserve its own extension?

> Proper desktop systems have been doing the right thing for ages now,
> for example the Gnome file manager doohicky (nautilus) correctly shows
> a thumbnail and movie strip views on video files, while it shows a
> music icon on audio files.
>
> Even Windows Vista can happily differentiate files with file magic...

Scanning files for stream headers is slow, and you can't expect every
application to support it. Gnome does, Windows Vista does, but what about
the directory list module in Lighttpd? What about the unix ls command? What
about FTP clients, archivers and older desktop systems?

What exactly is the disadvantage to using two different file extensions for
Ogg rather than one?

> Extensions are just too inflexible to match up with reality... Ogg
> isn't at all the only container to give up on that.. for example, what
> extension does a PDF of layed out ascii have? A PDF of scanned pages?
> A PDF of postscript algorithms that computes fractals?

Nonsense, there are three types of ogg: audio, video and weird rubbish that
nobody cares about. To use a different extension to one of these brings
instant usability benefits to a large volume of users.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Mark Clements (HappyDog)
"Tim Starling" <[hidden email]> wrote in
message news:efsjf0$a34$[hidden email]...
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > [snip]
> > Extensions are just too inflexible to match up with reality... Ogg
> > isn't at all the only container to give up on that.. for example, what
> > extension does a PDF of layed out ascii have? A PDF of scanned pages?
> > A PDF of postscript algorithms that computes fractals?
>
> Nonsense, there are three types of ogg: audio, video and weird rubbish
that
> nobody cares about. To use a different extension to one of these brings
> instant usability benefits to a large volume of users.
>

And there is no reason NOT to use different extensions.  For example, on my
machine I have associated .a95 with Access 95, .a97 with Access 97 and .a2k
with Access 2000.  I have no .mdb files (the native file extension).  Aside
from having to select 'all files' instead of 'MS Access Databases' when
opening a file there is no disadvantage, but it makes things a lot easier
and clearer, and it means the right application opens when I double-click
the file.

I _could_ name my .ogg video files .ogv and (after updating the file
associations) have a much easier-to-use system.

OR this standard could be adopted globally and make _everyone's_ life
easier.

I see no problem in .oga = audio, .ogv = video, .ogg = everything else

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

David Gerard-2
On 03/10/06, Mark Clements <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see no problem in .oga = audio, .ogv = video, .ogg = everything else


The only problem I see with it is that .ogg is what everyone currently
uses for audio.


- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Mark Clements (HappyDog)
"David Gerard" <[hidden email]> wrote in
message news:[hidden email]...
> On 03/10/06, Mark Clements <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> > I see no problem in .oga = audio, .ogv = video, .ogg = everything else
>
>
> The only problem I see with it is that .ogg is what everyone currently
> uses for audio.
>
>
> - d.

Sure. Maybe I should have used .ogg = generic ogg file (which may be audio
or video or something else).

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:57:55PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> > Extensions are just too inflexible to match up with reality... Ogg
> > isn't at all the only container to give up on that.. for example, what
> > extension does a PDF of layed out ascii have? A PDF of scanned pages?
> > A PDF of postscript algorithms that computes fractals?
>
> Nonsense, there are three types of ogg: audio, video and weird rubbish that
> nobody cares about. To use a different extension to one of these brings
> instant usability benefits to a large volume of users.

Well, IMO, if you're going to say "this is a custom extension for an
OGG container with only one type of content", you should do *both* .oga
and .ogv, and then do that hard parsing at run time for .oggs that you
couldn't pre-classify.

The problem isn't "creating a new .ogv".  It's "redefining .ogg as
meaning something more specific than it does".  If you're going to
impose more specific semantics, do it to your *own* extension, not the
standard one.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

        "That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
          they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:20:03PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> On 03/10/06, Mark Clements <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I see no problem in .oga = audio, .ogv = video, .ogg = everything else
>
> The only problem I see with it is that .ogg is what everyone currently
> uses for audio.

You're assuming facts not in evidence, David.  Vorbis is 3 or 4 orders
of magnitude more common than Theora -- *right now*.  Because of this,
there *appears* to be a correlation, which isn't really reasonable to
draw for the long term.

See my other reply; Mark and I essentially proposed the same idea,
independently.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

        "That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
          they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Sparr
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
Tim Starling wrote:
> I know, I've read the spec. But presumably it is fairly rare for Ogg files
> to consist of chained audio and video streams. Most Ogg files can be easily
> categorised as either audio or video. It's not a problem that you can
> construct a file which can't be, and it's not a problem that at present, it
> may be difficult to automatically distinguish between the two.

I disagree.  Almost every ogg file that contains video also contains
audio (the "normal" definition of a "video file" implicitly includes
audio).  But not every, just almost.  I have seen many scientific
publications, videos of experiments and such, with no audio.

> I'm not suggesting that there should be an extension for every permutation.
> I'm just suggesting that for files which are clearly video files, .ogv would
> be an appropriate extension. There are two important applications for .ogg,
> audio and video, is it really so horrible to suggest that one of them might
> deserve its own extension?

You are making arbitrary distinctions.  OGG containing Theora (the video
format of the ogg project) and OGG containing MPEG4 (via xvid, usually)
are just as different, in the same ways, as OGG+Theora and OGG+Vorbis
(or even OGG+MP3 or OGG+FLAC).

>> Proper desktop systems have been doing the right thing for ages now,
>> for example the Gnome file manager doohicky (nautilus) correctly shows
>> a thumbnail and movie strip views on video files, while it shows a
>> music icon on audio files.
>>
>> Even Windows Vista can happily differentiate files with file magic...
>
> Scanning files for stream headers is slow, and you can't expect every
> application to support it. Gnome does, Windows Vista does, but what about
> the directory list module in Lighttpd? What about the unix ls command? What
> about FTP clients, archivers and older desktop systems?

Why would any of those applications need to support it?  File extensions
are archaic, a dying anachronism in today's world of file magic and/or
MIME types.  Let them go.

> What exactly is the disadvantage to using two different file extensions for
> Ogg rather than one?

The disadvantage is that they are arbitrary, and convey almost no useful
information about the actual contents of the file.  And, to bring up an
odd anti-example, would you have us rename a Theora+Vorbis file from
.ogv to .oga just because we deleted the Theora stream?  That would be
like having a dozen extensions for PNG images just to indicate which
chunks are used.

>> Extensions are just too inflexible to match up with reality... Ogg
>> isn't at all the only container to give up on that.. for example, what
>> extension does a PDF of layed out ascii have? A PDF of scanned pages?
>> A PDF of postscript algorithms that computes fractals?
>
> Nonsense, there are three types of ogg: audio, video and weird rubbish that
> nobody cares about. To use a different extension to one of these brings
> instant usability benefits to a large volume of users.

Nonsense, there are at least 5 extremely common types of ogg:
Theora+Vorbis, Theora+AAC, Vorbis, MPEG4+MP3, and (everything else).


And, to make a final inquiry...  What players are you people using that
can play OGG+(Vorbis/MP3/AAC/FLAC) but cant play OGG+(Theora/MPEG4)?  I
have a half dozen media players installed on my machine, including
mplayer, xmms, totem, and xine, and every one of them can play every
media file I have, video, audio, or otherwise.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Simetrical
On 10/9/06, Clarence Risher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I'm not suggesting that there should be an extension for every permutation.
> > I'm just suggesting that for files which are clearly video files, .ogv would
> > be an appropriate extension. There are two important applications for .ogg,
> > audio and video, is it really so horrible to suggest that one of them might
> > deserve its own extension?
>
> You are making arbitrary distinctions.  OGG containing Theora (the video
> format of the ogg project) and OGG containing MPEG4 (via xvid, usually)
> are just as different, in the same ways, as OGG+Theora and OGG+Vorbis
> (or even OGG+MP3 or OGG+FLAC).

The end user doesn't care whether the file is Theora or MPEG4.  The
end user cares whether the file is audio or video (for instance, they
might want to listen to it on a non-video-capable iPod, or in the
background while they're doing other things with visual space).  The
end user can see the file extension but not, at least not easily, the
MIME type or file headers.

The application playing the OGG does care whether the file is Theora
or MPEG4.  It doesn't care whether it's audio or video as such; from
its point of view, the distinction *is* fairly arbitrary.  But the
application doesn't care about the file extension, it cares about the
MIME type and file headers.

Obvious conclusion: let the MIME type and file headers say whether
it's Theora or MPEG4, let the file extension say whether it's audio or
video.  Otherwise the only way a user can tell whether something is
audio or video is by opening it, which is annoying.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Chad Perrin
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 06:12:49PM -0400, Simetrical wrote:
>
> Obvious conclusion: let the MIME type and file headers say whether
> it's Theora or MPEG4, let the file extension say whether it's audio or
> video.  Otherwise the only way a user can tell whether something is
> audio or video is by opening it, which is annoying.

. . . or by using a specific set of applications that will determine,
and show, that information for you -- which can also be annoying if you
don't happen to like those applications.  I, for instance, am not a huge
fan of GUI file browsers.  I prefer to use terminal emulator windows as
my "file browsers", with command line tools like ls and tree for viewing
directory contents and filesystem hierarchy.

I find your reasoning, re: using the extension for the user (audio vs.
video) and the MIME/headers for the application (Theora/MPEG4/MP3/etc.),
compelling.  There are instances where the user might be interested in
determining the specific encoding type, of course, but separating the
file extensions from .ogg into something like .oga and .ogv at least
wouldn't reduce the accessibility of that information at all.

This does raise a question for me, though: considering that, as far as
I'm aware, there aren't any problems with MPEG4 that are solved by
wrapping it as an Ogg file (to make it Ogg/MPEG4) -- why bother?  It's
kind of off-topic for this discussion, and maybe I'm missing something
important, but I don't see the point in making an MPEG4 file into an
Ogg/MPEG4 file except, perhaps, as some sort of kewler-than-thou
notation.  Is there a technical benefit to this?

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Nick Jenkins
In reply to this post by Sparr
> > What exactly is the disadvantage to using two different file extensions for
> > Ogg rather than one?
>
> The disadvantage is that they are arbitrary, and convey almost no useful
> information about the actual contents of the file.

Well I don't know about you, but being able to quickly and easily determine from filename alone whether something is a video or an
audio file is most definitely "useful information" to me.

> And, to bring up an
> odd anti-example, would you have us rename a Theora+Vorbis file from
> .ogv to .oga just because we deleted the Theora stream?

If you have a video + audio file, and you delete the video stream, then yes, it would make sense for the file extension to change
from the video file extension to the audio file extension.

> That would be
> like having a dozen extensions for PNG images just to indicate which
> chunks are used.

I don't care about PNG internal chunk encoding. Neither does 99.99% of the population. That's why PNG uses one file extension, not a
dozen. People care about things that affect them. The distinction that matters to users is audio-only versus video (with or without
audio). (Anything that falls outside that, most people don't care, *because it doesn't affect them* .)

Ultimately however this decision will be made collectively by the users of these formats converging on file extensions that work
well for most people, by people voting with their feet and thereby creating de-facto file-extension standards where formal ones do
not exist. And from what limited in-the-wild usage that I have seen of these formats (the MP3 and XviD/DivX formats are still
massively more popular) the trend does seem to be towards different file extensions for audio and video.

All the best,
Nick.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Sparr
In reply to this post by Chad Perrin
Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 06:12:49PM -0400, Simetrical wrote:
>> Obvious conclusion: let the MIME type and file headers say whether
>> it's Theora or MPEG4, let the file extension say whether it's audio or
>> video.  Otherwise the only way a user can tell whether something is
>> audio or video is by opening it, which is annoying.
>
> . . . or by using a specific set of applications that will determine,
> and show, that information for you -- which can also be annoying if you
> don't happen to like those applications.  I, for instance, am not a huge
> fan of GUI file browsers.  I prefer to use terminal emulator windows as
> my "file browsers", with command line tools like ls and tree for viewing
> directory contents and filesystem hierarchy.

Then you can do what non-GUI-file-browser users have done for over a
decade with their MP3 files.  Use a file-header-reading program to
rename the files.  Just because a few people can't read ID3 tags is not
a reason for everyone in the world to give their MP3s huge filenames.

> This does raise a question for me, though: considering that, as far as
> I'm aware, there aren't any problems with MPEG4 that are solved by
> wrapping it as an Ogg file (to make it Ogg/MPEG4) -- why bother?  It's
> kind of off-topic for this discussion, and maybe I'm missing something
> important, but I don't see the point in making an MPEG4 file into an
> Ogg/MPEG4 file except, perhaps, as some sort of kewler-than-thou
> notation.  Is there a technical benefit to this?

MPEG4 is less than optimal in a few areas, such as multilingual
subtitles.  OGG+MPEG4 is a popular (relatively) choice among
fandub/fansub groups who translate foreign videos.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension; should it be changed on the commons?

Chad Perrin
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:54:30PM -0500, Clarence Risher wrote:

> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 06:12:49PM -0400, Simetrical wrote:
> >> Obvious conclusion: let the MIME type and file headers say whether
> >> it's Theora or MPEG4, let the file extension say whether it's audio or
> >> video.  Otherwise the only way a user can tell whether something is
> >> audio or video is by opening it, which is annoying.
> >
> > . . . or by using a specific set of applications that will determine,
> > and show, that information for you -- which can also be annoying if you
> > don't happen to like those applications.  I, for instance, am not a huge
> > fan of GUI file browsers.  I prefer to use terminal emulator windows as
> > my "file browsers", with command line tools like ls and tree for viewing
> > directory contents and filesystem hierarchy.
>
> Then you can do what non-GUI-file-browser users have done for over a
> decade with their MP3 files.  Use a file-header-reading program to
> rename the files.  Just because a few people can't read ID3 tags is not
> a reason for everyone in the world to give their MP3s huge filenames.

I don't see how "huge filenames" have anything to do with . . .
anything.


>
> > This does raise a question for me, though: considering that, as far as
> > I'm aware, there aren't any problems with MPEG4 that are solved by
> > wrapping it as an Ogg file (to make it Ogg/MPEG4) -- why bother?  It's
> > kind of off-topic for this discussion, and maybe I'm missing something
> > important, but I don't see the point in making an MPEG4 file into an
> > Ogg/MPEG4 file except, perhaps, as some sort of kewler-than-thou
> > notation.  Is there a technical benefit to this?
>
> MPEG4 is less than optimal in a few areas, such as multilingual
> subtitles.  OGG+MPEG4 is a popular (relatively) choice among
> fandub/fansub groups who translate foreign videos.

Thanks for the information.  Now I know.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The measure on a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
12