On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 06:56:55AM +0930, Ron wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Ralph Giles wrote: > > > > "Implementations of this specification MUST respect the 'output gain' > > field, but MAY NOT respect the comments. Encoder authors are advised to > > take this into account. For example, it is more robust for a > > post-processing application to performing track normalization to update > > the 'output gain' field and write a comment 'R128_TRACK_GAIN=0' than to > > put the normalization value directly in the comment." > > s/to performing/performing/ ? Or maybe "that is performing"? > > But yeah, modulo whatever still seems to be misleading Ian, > that seems about right to me.
So I believe this is now the last outstanding question from the last call comments that we still have open. There were some concerns raised about this wording, but my questions about exactly what the problem Ian had with it was have so far gone unanswered, which makes it a bit tricky to try to address whatever they really were, and I haven't seen a proposed alternative wording that covers the problem Ralph and I saw with the initial proposed edit leaving it without a rationale (which this version tried to fix). So if someone still thinks this says something that it shouldn't, or isn't properly clear about what it does say, could you please give us a sufficient explanation of that so we can understand and fix the problem, or propose an alternative wording that you think does which we can discuss. Otherwise, this is so far the closest to what I think was originally intended that we have on the table to accept. If we get this one out of the way now, I think we're nearly done. Thanks, Ron _______________________________________________ codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
