Hi, On 2010-06-09, Stefano Sabatini wrote: > On date Wednesday 2010-06-09 03:00:05 -0700, Baptiste Coudurier encoded: >> On 5/11/10 3:39 PM, Baptiste Coudurier wrote: >> >On 05/11/2010 03:18 PM, Stefano Sabatini wrote: >> >>On date Wednesday 2010-05-12 00:10:28 +0200, Vitor Sessak encoded: >> >>>Víctor Paesa wrote: >> >>>>Hi >> >>>> >> >>>>On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 21:46, Vitor Sessak wrote: >> >>>>>Baptiste Coudurier wrote: >> >>>>>>Guys, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>What do you think about it ? >> >>>>>Looks a good idea to me, unless someone comes up with an even >> >>>>>better name. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>Well, strictly speaking, not only files are supported. >> >>> >> >>>But for me "file" is still the least misleading. For example, in >> >>>"ffmpeg -h": >> >>> >> >>>>-i filename input file name >> >>> >> >>>We already call [file|URL|video4windows device number] a "file"... >> >> >> >>Exactly. What we're really taking in input is a lavf >> >>resource/source/stream. >> >> >> >>Maybe vsrc_stream, but I continue to prefer "lavf" as it is using the >> >>lavf syntax/capabilities. >> >> >> > >> >I think users don't really know about lavf, it won't be obvious for them >> >at all... >> > >> >> So, victor, stefano ? Do we agree on a name or ? Michael what do you think >> ?
My preferences (in order) are: * vsrc_movie -> keeping the original name saves some effort * vsrc_media -> "multimedia" is more descriptive, but too long. "media" is an acceptable (for me) compromise. Regards, Víctor _______________________________________________ FFmpeg-soc mailing list FFmpeg-soc@mplayerhq.hu https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-soc
