Re: [Cellar] purpose of FLAC RFC --- vs xiph.org

[Michael Niedermayer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 02:22:21PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Roman, in his AD review, asks why we did not take over the xiph.org
> ID registry at: https://xiph.org/flac/id.html
> 
> Well.  I thought it was because while we are detailing FLAC in a Matroska
> container in sufficient detail in an RFC, appropriate for use in archiving,
> we were not intending to take over maintenance of FLAC itself.
> (For instance, you can also put FLAC into an OGG container, or an MP4 container)
> 
> https://xiph.org/flac/format.html actually seems to disagree with me though.
> 
> * community FLAC might continue to evolve
> * the archival/RFC version might be a useful subset of what's possible

Why have 1 standard if we can have 2 or 3 that can diverge ;)

seriously, can we somehow try to make sure that evolution (which is good)
of one doesnt lead to 2 incompatible standards (which is bad) ?



> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, and the FLAC community wants the RFC to be the basis for all
> future work.  In which case, taking over that application ID table would be
> appropriate.  But, there are then other IANA tables that we need:
> * Table 2
> * Table 8
> * Table 13
> 

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates