Talk:MP4 file format: Difference between revisions
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::The link to the current version of the standard has been added as requested. The link to ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003, which is the first edition of version 2, was already in the text, it only required browsing the ISO website through the Life cycle section, or using a web search engine to look for the latest iteration in {{section link|MP4 file format|History}}, ISO/IEC 14496-14:2020. --[[User:Ftrebien|Fernando Trebien]] ([[User talk:Ftrebien|talk]]) 03:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
::The link to the current version of the standard has been added as requested. The link to ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003, which is the first edition of version 2, was already in the text, it only required browsing the ISO website through the Life cycle section, or using a web search engine to look for the latest iteration in {{section link|MP4 file format|History}}, ISO/IEC 14496-14:2020. --[[User:Ftrebien|Fernando Trebien]] ([[User talk:Ftrebien|talk]]) 03:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
::As the reference supports the information about the status, it is clear that the two cannot be treated separately, otherwise the text would become incoherent. The important point, however, is that the format is open and that the Library of Congress was and still is a much more reliable reference than some discussions on GitHub. Your reverts reintroduced an error and two less reliable references. A direct link to the standard is a welcome addition, but was not necessary to correct the previous information. --[[User:Ftrebien|Fernando Trebien]] ([[User talk:Ftrebien|talk]]) 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
::As the reference supports the information about the status, it is clear that the two cannot be treated separately, otherwise the text would become incoherent. The important point, however, is that the format is open and that the Library of Congress was and still is a much more reliable reference than some discussions on GitHub. Your reverts reintroduced an error and two less reliable references. A direct link to the standard is a welcome addition, but was not necessary to correct the previous information. --[[User:Ftrebien|Fernando Trebien]] ([[User talk:Ftrebien|talk]]) 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
=== 3O === |
|||
Hello, I'm responding to a request for more information at [[WP:3O]]. At a glance, I see contested sources that are links to Github. Github is not a good source per [[WP:USERGENERATED]]. The source at [https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml] appears to clearly indicate the format is open; is there any reason to doubt the veracity of that source? |
|||
Aside from the content question: accusations of bad faith do no help build consensus and have no place in article talk space. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:34, 1 March 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MP4 file format article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about MP4 file format. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about MP4 file format at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 16 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to MP4. The result of the discussion was Moved to MP4 file format. |
![]() Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
MP4 and ISOBMFF are open formats, even if an access fee is required
According to Open file format, "the specification of an open format may require a fee to access". Some recent edits to the infobox have stated that MP4 and ISO base media file format (ISOBMFF) are not open (the same as a trade secret), referencing GitHub issues about ISOBMFF, which are not as reliable as the Library of Congress sources that state that both MP4 and ISOBMFF are open formats. The justification in those GitHub issues was that, because the standard is not accessible without a fee, it should therefore be considered not open, which is incorrect. Although MP4 and ISOBMFF are open, they are not free as they require paying licensing fees. This is also listed in their infoboxes. Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- you're not editing in good faith. you've reverted several times without gaining consensus. also, you seem to be conflating the point of "is the format open" versus "is this link appropriate". tackle the issues separately. Svnpenn (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The link to the current version of the standard has been added as requested. The link to ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003, which is the first edition of version 2, was already in the text, it only required browsing the ISO website through the Life cycle section, or using a web search engine to look for the latest iteration in MP4 file format § History, ISO/IEC 14496-14:2020. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- As the reference supports the information about the status, it is clear that the two cannot be treated separately, otherwise the text would become incoherent. The important point, however, is that the format is open and that the Library of Congress was and still is a much more reliable reference than some discussions on GitHub. Your reverts reintroduced an error and two less reliable references. A direct link to the standard is a welcome addition, but was not necessary to correct the previous information. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
3O
Hello, I'm responding to a request for more information at WP:3O. At a glance, I see contested sources that are links to Github. Github is not a good source per WP:USERGENERATED. The source at [1] appears to clearly indicate the format is open; is there any reason to doubt the veracity of that source?
Aside from the content question: accusations of bad faith do no help build consensus and have no place in article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- C-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- C-Class software articles
- Mid-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Mid-importance
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Software articles
- C-Class Media articles
- High-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles