Skip to content

Clarify values of AV1CodecConfigurationRecord fields. #103

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Sep 11, 2018

Conversation

tomfinegan
Copy link
Collaborator

Add text explicitly stating the values for twelve_bit,
chroma_subsampling_x, chroma_subsampling_y, and
chroma_sample_position when not present in the Sequence
Header OBU.

Closes #102

Add text explicitly stating the values for twelve_bit,
chroma_subsampling_x, chroma_subsampling_y, and
chroma_sample_position when not present in the Sequence
Header OBU.

Closes #102
@tomfinegan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@VFR-maniac and @cconcolato ptal/thx!

@tomfinegan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Copy link
Collaborator

@cconcolato cconcolato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should add a "Changes since v1.0.0" section.

@VFR-maniac
Copy link

There are no cases of absences of chroma_subsampling_x and chroma_subsampling_y at the current ver. of AV1 spec. It's for possible future versions?

@tomfinegan tomfinegan added the editorial if approved, it does not affect the technical aspects of the specification (e.g. typo change) label Sep 11, 2018
@tomfinegan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

There are no cases of absences of chroma_subsampling_x and chroma_subsampling_y at the current ver. of AV1 spec. It's for possible future versions?

This wording is to handle the multiple cases where chroma_subsampling_x and chroma_subsampling_y have specified values but are not present in the Sequence Header OBU.

@tomfinegan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We should add a "Changes since v1.0.0" section.

Added in c18b35c

Copy link
Collaborator

@cconcolato cconcolato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  • I wouldn't place the change log at the very beginning of the spec. I would put it last.
  • Could you also add a "Last approved version" (or similar) at the top of the spec with a link to the v1.0.0 ?
  • Shouldn't we add the "warning" back?

@tomfinegan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I wouldn't place the change log at the very beginning of the spec. I would put it last.

Done.

Could you also add a "Last approved version" (or similar) at the top of the spec with a link to the v1.0.0 ?

We don't have this hosted anywhere yet. The rawgit trick works with the v1.0.0 tag, so I used that.

Shouldn't we add the "warning" back?

Done

@tomfinegan tomfinegan merged commit bcac53f into gh-pages Sep 11, 2018
@cconcolato cconcolato deleted the av1c_clarification branch October 9, 2018 21:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial if approved, it does not affect the technical aspects of the specification (e.g. typo change)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants