Talk:ISO base media file format

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ISO base media file format. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206025343/http://www.adobe.com:80/devnet/flv/pdf/video_file_format_spec_v10.pdf to https://www.adobe.com/devnet/flv/pdf/video_file_format_spec_v10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ISO base media file format. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420192552/http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/standards.htm to http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/standards.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605224839/http://www.isma.tv/specs/ISMA_E%26Aspec2.0.pdf to http://www.isma.tv/specs/ISMA_E%26Aspec2.0.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090910034756/http://www.isma.tv/spec-request.html to http://www.isma.tv/spec-request.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ISO base media file format. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007071048/http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/C.S0050-B_v1.0_070521.pdf to http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/C.S0050-B_v1.0_070521.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706004744/http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/10/new-file-extensions-and-mime-types.html to http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/10/new-file-extensions-and-mime-types.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007071048/http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/C.S0050-B_v1.0_070521.pdf to http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/C.S0050-B_v1.0_070521.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

ISO base media file format → (ISO/IEC base media file format) – (Because now the media file format is ISO and IEC as well). 194.230.73.38 (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2020 edition
Just for the record, ISO/IEC 14496-12 was updated in late 2020 and this edition is not a Publicly Available Standard (yet or anymore?). — Christoph Päper 07:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed and properly sourced move request. (non-admin closure) &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

ISO/IEC base media file format → ISO base media file format – There was a previous renaming of this article in October 2019 (see the record of that above on this page). This request would revert that renaming, which was misguided. What people may not have noticed is that on 11 October 2019, just a few days before starting the renaming discussion, the same anonymous IP made a lot of improper changes to the article (see here). This included changing the titles of many of the cited sources to make it appear that those documents had different titles than what they actually have. I just reverted the obviously improper citation changes (see here). The proper and official title of this standard is "ISO base media file format", even though it was developed jointly by ISO and IEC. Just look at the official standard title here (not the numerical designation ISO/IEC 14496-12, but the actual title that follows after "Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 12:". See also this press release from ISO and this similar press release from IEC about the standard. The formal name as well as the common name of this standard is "ISO base media file format", not "ISO/IEC base media file format". See also this and this. As far as I know, nobody calls this the ISO/IEC base media file format unless they've recently been reading Wikipedia. When proposing the previous renaming, the anonymous IP didn't even say that anyone actually uses their proposed name, and no one made any comments while the discussion was open. I think people were just not paying attention to the proposal. The IEC is a highly respected organization that has been involved in the development of this standard from day 1, but its name is not part of the title and is not part of the common name of the standard. Maybe it should have been, but it isn't. Mulligatawny (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. --  EN  - Jungwon  14:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)  — Relisting.  何をしましたか？  那晚安啦.  08:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Professional sound production has been notified of this discussion. 何をしましたか？  那晚安啦.  08:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISOBMFF and MP4 are open formats
There is a discussion about this taking place at. Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on whether ISO BMFF is an open format
Should the infobox indicate that ISO BMFF is an open format, that it is not an open format, or say nothing about it?

Related RfCs: Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is also an almost identical RFC at Talk:MP4 file format. Please participate in both RFCs.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

MP4 is not an open format:

> Since using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only using open formats on our sites, WMF has opened this Request for Comments to seek community guidance.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video

> MP4 is a proprietary format

https://computerworld.com/article/2702159/wikimedia-mulls-support-for--patent-encumbered--video-file-format.html

> file format with no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, placed upon its use

https://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format

> open format (i.e., a format with a freely available published specification which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use)

https://opendefinition.org/ofd

also I have received private communication from the Library of Congress, that MP4 is not an open format. I can verify this communication by whatever means needed.

Svnpenn (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

entry on Administrators' noticeboard has now been archived:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151

also given this comment:

> By analogy, the infobox of ISO base media file format should indicate it is also not open

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MP4_file_format#LOC_now_confirms_MP4_is_not_open

I am inclined to go ahead and update ISOBMFF as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svnpenn (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Use more clear and precise terminology instead: It should be apparent to anyone who has read the Open file format and Open standard articles, and has seen the references there to various meanings of the term, that there is a range of different meanings to the word "open" (and also the word "proprietary"). There are certainly some people who strongly advocate that the word "open" should have one particular meaning, and it is easy to find various descriptions of what they think the word should mean. But there are different kinds of "openness". Wikipedia should not try to decide that one meaning of the word is universally true and is understood and accepted by everyone and that all other interpretations are wrong. Obviously, sites like https://opendatahandbook.org and https://opendefinition.org/ are at least partly advocacy sites, not merely reporters of objective truth. The ComputerWorld article is, at least primarily, reporting what was said by the Wikimedia Foundation, not just about what is objective truth, and that article also includes clarifying language about patents and licenses. (The way the word "proprietary" is used there seems rather unusual, since I think most people would ordinarily only think of a format as being proprietary if it was controlled by a single company and typically with no detailed published documentation of the format at all.) Rather than using vague words like "open" and "proprietary", Wikipedia should use more precise descriptions of what it is saying. The article should describe the specific characteristics of the format that seem relevant and important, such as 1) whether there is a published document available that can be obtained without signing a non-disclosure agreement that describes the format (as contrasted with formats for which no documentation is available to the public), 2) if published documentation exists, was it produced by a standards organization that allows participation by interested parties or instead by a single company or small group of affiliates that have a close business relationship with each other? 3) if published documentation exists, is the document available on the web for free or at a cost that is typically considered reasonable for such a publication – e.g. the cost of a textbook –  or at a price that seems chosen to discourage access by anyone other than a large business –  e.g. several thousand or tens of thousands of dollars?, 4) is the format and its use covered by patents?, 5) if so, can licenses to those patents be obtained at a reasonable cost in a non-discriminatory way (see FRAND)?, 6) if some patents have applied, have the patents expired? (It may be worth noticing that the first edition of the ISO BMFF spec document was published rather long ago and was based on older technology that had already been in use for a while.) Mulligatawny (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)