|
|
|
|
|
|
by deno
2990 days ago
|
|
|
The question is whether “.av1” conveys more useful information to the end user than “.mkv” Of course you can make an “.h264” with opus audio but in reality no one does that. And anyway even if that wasn’t the case, once you decide to use that extension you agree to not do that. Audio is also both easier to play on anything with software encoding and easy to reencode if needed. Perfect is the enemy of the good. What useful information does the “.mkv” or “.webm” extension offer exactly? It’s “correct,” but also completely useless. The only signal it provides is accidental and unreliable.
Might as well use “.video” and “.audio”. |
|
|
People definitely do that. And even if they didn't, significantly more people create h264+flac releases, and flac is also supported by much fewer devices than e.g. AC3.
E.g. .mkv does convey useful information. A player needs to support the container format as well, not just the codecs for the streams it contains. Different containers also support different features (not all containers are equal), and there are tools that only work for some containers.
The signal provided is only accidental and unreliable as a proxy for audio or video codec, not in general.
.webm is also a bit of a bad example here, since it's just a subset of matroska (mkv), but more importantly it initially only supported a single video codec and a single audio codec (VP8 & Vorbis). Of course, that has changed since, with the addition of support for VP9, AV1, and Opus.