Other Matroska Features ignored?

[Singpolyma]

The site says *should* use webm doctype, does this mean that if I use
the matroska doctype and only use webm supported features that webm
players *should* work?

If I use matroska features not supported by webm currently (under
either doctype) will webm implementations safely ignore those parts of
the file, or will they refuse to play? (ie, is webm future proof)

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Singpolyma <singp...@singpolyma.net> wrote:
> The site says *should* use webm doctype, does this mean that if I use
> the matroska doctype and only use webm supported features that webm
> players *should* work?

For content originators should is interpreted as must in this
specification. If you do not use the correct doctype your are
non-conformant, and valid players may fail. They are encouraged not to
fail, but they are not required to accept this case.

[Vladimir Pantelic]

in fact they are encouraged to fail:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=580982

[Steve Lhomme]

By the way, it should be good to have some conformance test files. I
have done for Matroska to validate players. The same should be done
with WebM. For example to make sure they support skipping elements
they don't understand (forward compatibility) and don't crash
miserably on slightly bogus files. Are there any plans like that ?

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "WebM Discussion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to webm-d...@webmproject.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> webm-discuss...@webmproject.org.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webm-discuss/?hl=en.
>
>