Template talk:Compression Formats
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] New version draft
I've created a new version of this template at Template:MediaCompression/v2draft. I'll move it to this page in a few days if nobody has any issues with it. --Tom Edwards 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- It to big and likely wont work well small screen resolution not to mention you've hard-coded the background color. I would be generally unopposed to breaking up the template. -Dispenser 18:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- You have a fair point with the colours (although, in my defence, it is a Wiki limitation). But while the draft design might not be brilliant at low resolutions, I personally consider that a lower priority than the template being easily readable - which in its current state it really is not, on anyone's screen! --Tom Edwards 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll merge in half and hour. --Tom Edwards 15:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, done. I replaced background colours with dotted borders, which doesn't quite look as good but will work cross-theme. We really need some classes for this sort of thing! --Tom Edwards 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think that this is a good draft and should be swapped with this current template. Great work!-Hairchrm 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You have a fair point with the colours (although, in my defence, it is a Wiki limitation). But while the draft design might not be brilliant at low resolutions, I personally consider that a lower priority than the template being easily readable - which in its current state it really is not, on anyone's screen! --Tom Edwards 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think Layer 2 should be listed before Layer 3 on account of numerical/chronological/evolutionary ordering XanderJ 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additions
Shouldn't JFIF, JIF, and Exif be added to the MM Container section? algocu 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- EXIF isn't a container format; it's a format for metadata tags similar to the one used for TIFFs. (I'm not saying the other two are container formats; I just don't know.) grendel|khan 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Audio Compression Formats include DTS? 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redone with {{navbox generic}}.
Have a look at this one. I used nested tables inside {{navbox generic}} in order to get the show/hide and v-d-e buttons. This version has less whitespace than the current one, so it's not quite so huge. Suggestions for colors/themes or styling welcome. Also for how to get the navbox to default to hidden. (Actually, at this size, do we want to default it to hidden?) grendel|khan 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compression?
AIFF is not a compression format. Nor is WAV. But, if we are including those file types (non-compressed) then we need to add in RIFF to the audio only section. Thank you!-Hairchrm 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||||
[edit] AMR?
Apparently AMR-WB is G.722.2 in this template. But where is AMR itself? --82.195.186.220 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Converted to navbox
More work on this, a bit more generic. What we really want is to be able to use Wiki-style templates inside the navbox, but I'm not sure this is currently possible. Chris Cunningham 14:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I added the navbox subgroups instead since that is much nicer, I hope you like it? And I made every second line light grey for readability as we often do now. But for some reason Thumperward destroyed the every second grey thing and made the lines grey in groups of 2-3 lines instead. Very weird. I'll ask him about it.
- --David Göthberg 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I much preferred it as it was, per Grendelkhan above. It was both more attractive and more readable then. Any chance of changing it back? Jheald 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Jheald: Seriously? Did you see the version before Chris Cunningham/Thumperward changed it? I mean this version.
- --David Göthberg 20:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I made it every second list row light grey again. My guess is that Chris Cunningham/Thumperward simply didn't realise what that markup was for. Jheald: What do you you think about it?
- --David Göthberg 07:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I know what the markup is for, I just didn't feel it had a strong enough effect on clarity to warrant keeping it (manually changing the colour of certain lines makes the template less maintainable in the long run). There are two other templates closely-related to this one which should look as similar to it as possible, and they'd need to be manually fiddled-with too. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, you made it so 2-3 list rows at a time became grey. If we set it to every second list row now and in the future someone adds another row somewhere in the middle without updating the settings only two rows will get the same colour. Instead of as now all rows having this problem. So why should we have the problem already now? I mean, let's not give up beforehand. And besides, there are plenty of skilled editors around who will probably fix any such future mistakes.
- --David Göthberg 09:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The thing is, I regard this kind of thing as premature optimisation. The loss of clarity is only very slight (on my home LCD it's almost unnoticable) and it actually leads to less distinction between the separate main groups (because it's harder to distinguish the subgroups from one another). And for consistency this sub-striping needs to be manually applied to every sub-group on every navbox on Wikipedia. This is rather a lot of work even for dedicated templaters. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Ok so Here we have a list of compression formats for various uses. However it is a poorly organized list. Its not nearly as bad as the List of mobile phone standards tho. Might I suggest grouping compression by some sort of timeline. where newer formats like AAC would be listed ahead of mp3. And if G.721 came out in '84 and g.723 in '86. but were merged into G.726 in 1990.... The point is, i don't believe that they are current enough to get as much attention as more widespread stuff.
- (Funkasaurus (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
