> Could you maybe add a comment to where this comes from/where it is > specified, and if you know possible future plan?
Myself and others from Opus/Videolan etc are drafting a specification for Opus in TS: https://people.xiph.org/~tterribe/opus/ETSI_TS_opus-v0.1.2-draft.doc We are registered with the appropriate MPEG-TS registration authority: http://smpte-ra.org/mpegreg/Opus.html As far as I know the only application that can make these files currently is the application I wrote. > I just see the "provisional Opus" comment. > Which kind of raises the question if we shouldn't disallow it unless an > experimental flag is set - or at least warn, so that people won't rely > on FFmpeg being able to decode any such files if maybe in a few months > an incompatible version is introduced. We don't have an officially registered DVB descriptor so we use one of the spaces that are allowed for user defined descriptors because our descriptor is not (yet) standardised by a standards body. Along with our MPEG-TS registration (which FFmpeg checks) this user-defined descriptor is guaranteed to be the Opus descriptor. I have no objection to adding an experimental flag. The last patch also has some issues which need addressing. As a result of the implementation in FFmpeg/Libav parts of the specification were change to simplify things so public review is important. The specification also has reserved fields designed to allow expansion in a backwards compatible fashion. Note that I have deliberately not put a muxer in. Kieran _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
