1. Summary
The document shepherd is Steven Villereal. villereal at gmail dot com
The responsible Area Director is Ben Campbell.
This document defines format considerations for Extensible Binary Meta
Language, a hierarchical file format for efficient delivery of binary data in
defined Elements inspired by XML. It proposes definitions for creating and
validating EBML Schemas that define the use and interpretation of Elements
within EBML Documents.
2. Review and Consensus
This document has been adequately reviewed by working group members and others,
through both mailing list discussion and Github issues and pull requests.
One minor issue was how to define EBML Elements in a Header document in a
forward-compatible way. It was decided Headers could require a specific,
minimum or maximum EBMLVersion (which might have different implementations of
Elements).
Most recent discussion has focused on how Element IDs (unique identifiers for
EBML Elements used within a Schema and Document) should be defined and encoded
(as Variable Size Integers) with regard to IANA registration.
This document creates a new IANA Registry called "CELLAR EBML ElementID
Registry" but to simplify IANA registration, the group agreed this document
should only apply to Element IDs of EBML Header and global elements. More
specific implementations of EBML (such as matroska) found in an EBML Body will
have their own Element IDs that are not defined in this document.
This document creates a new IANA Registry called "CELLAR EBML DocTypeRegistry".
This document reserves DocType string values of "matroska" and "webm" in the
First Come First Served registry.
3. Intellectual Property
The authors of this draft submit it in full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79.
4. Other Points
There are minor nits to be resolved (adding one RFC 2119 keyword and some
<element>schema attributes which are mentioned but not defined. This is a very
readable and clearly written document, and represents the inclusion of multiple
recent revisions resolving minor outstanding issues. There appears to be strong
group consensus on this document’s readiness to move forward in the
standardization process.