I think it is clear that there are only clarifications envisaged by the
MTF.
In particular, we are not in the position to introduce additional
features, we are only "repairing" things which are broken (not too much,
I think).
The clarifications suggested should ensure interoperability, not new
features.
Of course, the border between technical change and clarification is a
very thin line sometimes. That is why we have the face-2-face meetings.
I can assure you that we have had very detailed debate about everything,
in particular since we have had at least 5 implementors of different
MHEG Engines in the room. Due to that, we have had a high level of
understanding, and everyone was keen to check that the "own"
implementation concept is not broken.
So, the outcome is already a compromise between the folks who have been
there (Actually, we have had quite much ideas pushing the limits, but at
the end we went back to the most conservative clarification)
One very important thing which I think you may underestimate sometimes
is the "ease of use of MHEG". Frankly speaking, there is NONE. Moreover,
there is no intention to have some.
MHEG is targeted to low resource systems, it should be called Multimedia
Assember or Multimedia Postscript. So, there is not convenient MHEG
language feature. That is up to the authoring tool. It is like Visual
Basic and pentium assember.
I hope that clarifies soemthing :-)
- Klaus
-- GMD FOKUS German National Research Center for Information Technology Klaus Hofrichter Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 D-10589 Berlin Germany mailto:hofrichter@fokus.gmd.de http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/hofrichter P: +49 30 3463 7211 Fx -8211 There is a reexamination, but no reparty