On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:40:24PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > On 20.11.2016 13:42, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > 2016-11-19 17:30 GMT+01:00 Andreas Cadhalpun > > <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com>: > > > >> A hard failure is unnecessary and Carl Eugen [1] and Hendrik [2] > >> convinced me that it should be avoided. > > > > I believe that ffm should (or at least can) indeed be treated differently > > from all other containers. > > OK, ffm is a special case, but I'm also interested in the general case. > > Currently many demuxers silently accept wrong (i.e. negative) values > for channels, bit_rate, block_align and so on. I'd like to fix that, > so the question is now, how? > > There are a few possibilities: > a) error out for negative values and also for zero > b) error out for negative values, silently accept zero > c) warn for negative values and also for zero > d) warn for negative values, silently accept zero > e) something else > > Is there a consensus on which way is best?
I think this depends on the format and what exists in real world files If X is allowed by the spec, clearly no error or warning should be produced for it If X is not allowed by the spec but occurs in some file then no error should occur by default but likely a warning. More strict compliance options can change this. If X does not work (demuxer failing in some form) then it should error out Theres quite a bit between these and theres the problem of not knowing spec and file existence easily [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. -- Socrates
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
