The OGM container does not exist; it is actually called Ogg and the right file extension for them is .ogg, or so does think Ogg creators http://www.xiph.org.
There's a extended missconception with that, a lot of people do actually thing there's such a thing as OGM, different than Ogg. I think it must be fixed ASAP to avoid more confusion.
ogm -> ogg [NOBUG]
Moderator: AniDB
IIRC, OGM was an unofficial usage of the (official) OGG-container to include video-data. "Unofficial", because the original specifications didn't have any fixed information on how video has to be included.
Even though it's now part of the official specs (again: IIRC), I'd rather count that as one step to "accepting the existance of ogm".
I am very sure that most (windows-)users will want their two seperate extensions for audio(-only)- and video-files to associate different players with them, so I suspect that the "ogm"-extension will not vanish - not because of a misconception, but rather because "people want it that way".
Conclusion:
It should not be changed unless the usage of "ogg" as extension for video-files becomes widely accepted.
Even though it's now part of the official specs (again: IIRC), I'd rather count that as one step to "accepting the existance of ogm".
I am very sure that most (windows-)users will want their two seperate extensions for audio(-only)- and video-files to associate different players with them, so I suspect that the "ogm"-extension will not vanish - not because of a misconception, but rather because "people want it that way".
Conclusion:
It should not be changed unless the usage of "ogg" as extension for video-files becomes widely accepted.
About OGM... a tool called ogmmerge or something like that was first made by someone as a set of tools to mux/demux Ogg files with video and audio at the same time. The files created by it are by all means perfectly valid Ogg files, or so does think Monty, the guy from xiph.org that created Ogg in the first place. The guy that programmed that ogm tool is part of xiph.org now, too.wahaha wrote:IIRC, OGM was an unofficial usage of the (official) OGG-container to include video-data. "Unofficial", because the original specifications didn't have any fixed information on how video has to be included.
Even though it's now part of the official specs (again: IIRC), I'd rather count that as one step to "accepting the existance of ogm".
I am very sure that most (windows-)users will want their two seperate extensions for audio(-only)- and video-files to associate different players with them, so I suspect that the "ogm"-extension will not vanish - not because of a misconception, but rather because "people want it that way".
Conclusion:
It should not be changed unless the usage of "ogg" as extension for video-files becomes widely accepted.
About the filename extension... the Ogg container creators decided to use .ogg and that's what we must stick to; Talking with Monty, I've learned he also doesn't like the .ogm extension. Myself, I think it just leads to missunderstanding the .ogm files to be using something different than the Ogg container, or never to know about Ogg/Xiph.Org at all. That's very sad and should be fixed ASAP.
I didn't argument against that - one can of course hold a lot of different contents in "ogg", but the more different contents it includes, the less useful becomes the file-extension.skuld wrote:The files created by it are by all means perfectly valid Ogg files, or so does think Monty, the guy from xiph.org that created Ogg in the first place.
We should rather stick to what's widely used and accepted. As I wrote above, it makes sense to have seperate file-extensions for audio- and video-files unless you want to promote "all-in-one"-players, so I don't think that it's just the result of a misconception, but actually wanted by the users.skuld wrote:About the filename extension... the Ogg container creators decided to use .ogg and that's what we must stick to
Many people confuse "avi" with "divx". I've also read about "ogm having a lower video-quality than avi"skuld wrote:Myself, I think it just leads to missunderstanding the .ogm files to be using something different than the Ogg container, or never to know about Ogg/Xiph.Org at all. That's very sad and should be fixed ASAP.
...I seriously doubt that you can educate these people by naming video-files the same as audio-files.
Conclusion 2:
It was a good decision to use a different extension. Changing it on top of the users wouldn't help promoting the format. On the contrairy, it would decrease the usability and create confusion.