Home > All Posts > Individual Post
Post #791

Re: [videoblogging] conventions vs. standards

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 20, 2004 | Post #791 | Topic #733

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, M. Sean Gilligan wrote: > Not to defend/promote MS, but Word enables global communication. I > exchange Word documents with people all over the world. I have no > choice -- Word is what people use and send to me. My sense is that this issue of standards vs. conventions is going to become a standard flame attractor as our work goes on. ...better to punt on it for now. > There is no single standard called "MP4". There is a collection of > evolving standards called "MPEG-4". There is an .mp4 file format (based > on QuickTime .mov and almost identical.) Within an .mp4 file there can > be a variety of codecs, such as H.263, MPEG-4 Video, H.264/AVC for video > and "MP3", AAC, etc. for audio. Within the MPEG-4 video standard there > are a variety of "profiles" such as "Simple Profile" and "Advanced > Simple Profile". QuickTime can't play "Advanced Simple Profile" (yet) > "3GPP" format is a subset of MPEG-4 defined for cellular phones that can > only play a subset of MPEG-4 files. Some "MPEG-4" implementations such > as DivX put MPEG-4 encoded media in .avi format files. Excuse me -- I didn't absorb this when you posted it the first time. What we have have to do, as a community, is to try out every plausible export format on every plausible player. Your other message this morning was pretty much exactly that, so I think we're in the same place. Things to learn: what players support which formats out of the box, what players support which formats given a little bit of effort, what players we (as a whole) are willing to give up on, what are the correct mime types, and how to fix hosts with wrong mime types. - Lucas