Graham Klyne (GK@dial.pipex.com)
Thu, 05 Aug 1999 11:38:49 +0100
At 21:18 04/08/99 -0700, Laile Di Silvestro (Exchange) wrote:
>I agree with Keith. There is no formal WAV specification and a plethora of
>implementations. To enable interoperability, it is therefore necessary to
>provide a document that defines the WAV format for use in the VPIM context.
>The WAV definition provided in the internet draft attempts to do just that.
That approach is fine with me.
In which case, I would suggest that it might be helpful to separate the
audio/wav MIME registration (with reference to the Microsoft documentation)
from the definition of WAVE as used by VPIM (e.g. along the lines of RFC
2301/RFC 2302 for Internet fax).
(Of course, other applications may also choose to reference the "VPIM"
version of WAVE, but that's another story.)
>Earlier versions of the VPIM v3 internet draft defined a codec parameter
>that specified the codec used for the WAV encapsulated audio. Although it
>provided redundant information, it provided a relatively quick way to
>determine the codec used without requiring understanding of the data
>encapsulation, and without the necessity of parsing the WAV chunks.
I have no strong view on this. A new feature registration in the CONNEG
framework, along with the proposal
<draft-ietf-conneg-content-features-01.txt>, could provide a similar facility.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Mar 19 2002 - 01:04:15 IDT