At 16:26 06.02.2012, you wrote:
>On 06.02.2012 18:52, Olav Sunde wrote: >> At 14:16 06.02.2012, you wrote: >> >>> Olav, >>> >>> A change like this could easily break the format. That would be >>> a bad choice. >> >> That makes sense. Explains why it is not there today. >> >> >>> On the other hand, an informational 'application' block could be >>> added in a way that does not break the format, and this would >>> even be backwards compatible since 'application' blocks have >>> always been a part of the specification. You simply won't be >>> able to rely on them being there. >> >> This is probably the best thing then. Adding the info will be >> optional? It would certainly be an improvement and hopefully become >> part of the command line description so users would know how to do >> it. >> >Make a specification for storing this kind of data in app-block, then >devise a way to measure encoding complexity of existing FLAC stream - >and you'll be able to put these block in FLAC files that didn't have >them originally. This would be really useful. I hope someone will try to do this for the next release of flac. Olav >_______________________________________________ >flac-dev mailing list >flac-dev@xiph.org >http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
_______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
