Difference between revisions of "CELF Project Proposal/Extend DLNA specifications"
(Add Category Project proposals) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
== Scope == | == Scope == | ||
| − | This should probably take up to 2 months of | + | This should probably take up to 2 months of writing efforts and much more for lobbying. |
== Comments == | == Comments == | ||
| + | Tim Bird wrote: | ||
| + | <pre> | ||
| + | This was discussed at the last OSS DLNA mini-summit, in 2008. | ||
| + | Attendees decided it would be good, but actual progress getting | ||
| + | something put together to submit to DLNA was missing. | ||
| + | </pre> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Project proposals]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:40, 6 May 2011
- Summary
- Extend the DLNA specifications
- Proposer
- Benjamin Zores
Contents |
Description
DLNA has become a de-facto standard for multimedia content access among Home consumers devices (TVs, NAS, SetTopBox ...).
Based on UPnP A/V specifications, the DLNA ones however limit its potential to only a very small subset of multimedia files. As a result, many files aren't natively "DLNA-compliant" (while perfectly valid and playable) and require the server to transcode A/V streams to be streamed. This is actually quite impossible on embedded devices due to the impressive required CPU processing resources. See http://gxben.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/why-do-i-hate-dlna-protocol-so-much/ for more details.
The idea is to get involved with DLNA Alliance to extend the existing specifications to support more profiles, mainly:
- Microsoft AVI container
- Matroska (MKV) container
- Ogg container and Vorbis audio codec
- FLAC audio codec
The project requires no development but specifications redaction and companies support fro being accepted by DLNA Alliance members.
Related work
- libdlna, reference DLNA implementation - http://libdlna.geexbox.org/
Scope
This should probably take up to 2 months of writing efforts and much more for lobbying.
Comments
Tim Bird wrote:
This was discussed at the last OSS DLNA mini-summit, in 2008. Attendees decided it would be good, but actual progress getting something put together to submit to DLNA was missing.
