On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:36:33 JST [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Church) wrote: > >Seriously speaking, I think this situation can stay as well as we are able > >to found a name more explicative and that sounds better for > >'multiplex_y4m'. > > Why don't we leave y4m as is, and split wav off to multiplex_wav? > If that sounds reasonable to you, I can go ahead and do this (and add the > fourth -y parameter too).
No objections, since in facts it was already a forcing to merge yuv4mpeg and wav, that are *very* weakly linked by it's own. Best regards, -- Francesco Romani - Ikitt ['people always complain, no matther what you do'] IM contact: (email-me, I have antispam default deny!) icq://27-83-87-867 some known bugs: http://www.transcoding.org/cgi-bin/transcode?Bug_Showcase
