Re: [Cellar] On the multiplicity of Info elements

["Timothy B. Terriberry" <[e-mail]>]

Dave Rice wrote:
> implementation of this recommendation has been minimal.  To change
> the SHOULD to a MUST, would invalidate approximately 99.8% of
> Matroska files and 100% of webm files. I realize that this reason

Well, in the IETF (in contrast with the traditional approach of, say, 
MPEG) we are allowed to specify requirements on muxers separately from 
demuxers. So it's perfectly permissible to say a muxer MUST include CRCs 
while simultaneously saying a demuxer MUST be able to read a file 
without them. Then you wouldn't invalidate the existing media, just the 
existing software that produced them.

However, if you don't think it's worth trying to force muxers to change 
their implementation (or don't believe that a SHOULD or MUST in a spec 
will actually cause them to change), then perhaps the most appropriate 
level for this requirement is MAY?

> Perhaps the recommendation for CRC-32 usage (in Level 1 Elements and
> Identically-Recurring Elements) should be removed from the EBML
> Specification and moved to the Matroska EBML Schema.

That might also be reasonable (I hold no strong opinion).