Linked by lemur2 on Wed 9th Mar 2011 00:18 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 465543
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM
by ruinevil on Thu 10th Mar 2011 05:13
in reply to "RE: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM"
MKV can do everything. It's by design infinitely extensible, you just have to define the streams and other files in XMLish file inside and pray your player knows what to do with it.
MPEG-4 AVC has a defined subtitle format. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_17
WebM on the other hand does not currently. And the hardware currently being created for it will probably ignore subtitles when they are added to the spec.
RE[3]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Mar 2011 05:18
in reply to "RE[2]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM"
WebM on the other hand does not currently.
There is no need for WebM to define any specific subtitle format. What would the point be anyway, subtitle stream has nothing to do with video codec whatsoever.
And the hardware currently being created for it will probably ignore subtitles when they are added to the spec.
None of the current hardware renders subtitles. Subtitle rendering is done all in software, including H.264. Again, subtitles have nothing to do with the video stream.




Member since:
2010-05-19
...
What?
MKV has well-defined support for subtitles.
There are numerous other problems with what you said, but I'll let someone more well-versed in the terminology debunk them.