22:2722:27, 26 June 2018diffhist+1,483
Talk:AV1
→Release is just a PR statement: Release is real. The repo has a v1.0.0 tag, and the spec PDF is specifically matched to the code in the repo as of the v1.0.0 tag. You can call that a bit-stream freeze of a sort if you want.
27 May 2018
04:1304:13, 27 May 2018diffhist+33
AV1
→Purpose: Add tags to point out the specific flaws with this paragraph. Ideas need to hew closer to cited sources. Avoid improper synthesis. Important assertions in the article should clearly be associated with a specific source or sources, whereas the paragraph, even after improvement for neutral PoV, is unclear where (whoch sources, if any) these ideas came from. I personally think this paragraph is a nice break from too-closely-affiliated primary sources, but needs to be verifiable!
18:1418:14, 2 April 2018diffhist+116
AV1
→History: Remove mention of certain details from the announcement for which I couldn't find any third-party/secondary sources.
29 March 2018
18:4418:44, 29 March 2018diffhist+79
AV1
→History: Adding "primary inline" and "third-party inline" tags to the 28 March spec announcement reference. As far as I can tell, the "reference streams" aren't really available yet; Furthermore, I can't find any "bindings" released anywhere, so who knows whether those are released yet, or ever will be. My point being, let's please get some more good-quality, independent sources to back up what the 28 March announcement really entails. Verifiability needs work on the 28 March announcement.
04:5504:55, 29 March 2018diffhist+21
AV1
→History: Link to Wikipedia's "Language bindings" page, since I think the use of the word "bindings" here may be cryptic or ambiguous to a general non-computer-programmer audience.
22:2722:27, 26 June 2018diffhist+1,483
Talk:AV1
→Release is just a PR statement: Release is real. The repo has a v1.0.0 tag, and the spec PDF is specifically matched to the code in the repo as of the v1.0.0 tag. You can call that a bit-stream freeze of a sort if you want.
27 May 2018
04:1304:13, 27 May 2018diffhist+33
AV1
→Purpose: Add tags to point out the specific flaws with this paragraph. Ideas need to hew closer to cited sources. Avoid improper synthesis. Important assertions in the article should clearly be associated with a specific source or sources, whereas the paragraph, even after improvement for neutral PoV, is unclear where (whoch sources, if any) these ideas came from. I personally think this paragraph is a nice break from too-closely-affiliated primary sources, but needs to be verifiable!
18:1418:14, 2 April 2018diffhist+116
AV1
→History: Remove mention of certain details from the announcement for which I couldn't find any third-party/secondary sources.
29 March 2018
18:4418:44, 29 March 2018diffhist+79
AV1
→History: Adding "primary inline" and "third-party inline" tags to the 28 March spec announcement reference. As far as I can tell, the "reference streams" aren't really available yet; Furthermore, I can't find any "bindings" released anywhere, so who knows whether those are released yet, or ever will be. My point being, let's please get some more good-quality, independent sources to back up what the 28 March announcement really entails. Verifiability needs work on the 28 March announcement.
04:5504:55, 29 March 2018diffhist+21
AV1
→History: Link to Wikipedia's "Language bindings" page, since I think the use of the word "bindings" here may be cryptic or ambiguous to a general non-computer-programmer audience.