On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:38:37PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Ron <ron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > More official than the codec working group declaring it to be in its > > finally frozen form, or the codec specification being submitted to and > > approved by the IESG for publication? > > You keep refering to standards, while I am talking about what we can > actually rely on, the implementation. Then you have my apologies for omitting a fact from my original list that I'd assumed was common knowledge: - The implementation you are referring to _is_ the normative part of the now finalised standard. That code defines the bitstream. Officially. Any other text is purely informative. So any deviation from compatibility with that in later releases, or any other implementation, will be a very serious bug, and cause it to no longer be an implementation of Opus. ie. This simply isn't going to happen now. > We just need an opus implementation to say clearly that it will be > bit-stream compatible with future releases. Not play with chances. It said that by being published as the normative standard :) You have more chance of your office being struck by a meterorite shaped like a rhinoceros, with your name written on it in 40 foot high gold leaf, whistling ride of the valkyries as it descends into the atmosphere, than of opus breaking bitstream compatibility now. Really. It's somewhere on that sort of order of risk. You're already playing a game of chance. Think of Opus as your insurance policy if your luck doesn't hold out as long as you'd like. Ron _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel