feedback on the production/distribution steps

[andyburras]

I think I'd split this slightly differently, and bring in a "versioning" step (e.g. IMF):

• pre-production: . . .
• production: media capture, production studio, etc.
• artistic post-production: audio/video mixing, special effects, etc. to produce high quality "sources" of the final media.
• versioning: (arguably this could be considered as part of the distribution step). audio/video/subtitle association, re-encoding, compression, packaging, content protection, etc. to produce potentially multiple variants for different distributors, localities, distribution methods, etc.
• distribution: content discovery and selection, broadcasting, streaming, content protection, ad-insertion, etc.
• rendering: . . .

Of course in the real world the divisions between these logical steps blur depending on different industry and business work flows.

[tidoust]

Thanks @andyburras, and apologies for the time taken to respond, for some reason, I had turned off notifications for this repository, and thus has not seen your feedback...

I adjusted the wording to clarify that the post-production is an artistic step, and moved post-production steps that could be considered pre-distribution steps to distribution. I found it useful to reuse some of the terms defined in the Web Media Application Developer Guidelines too, notably to introduce the concept of "mezzanine file" as the main outcome of the post-production step.

The document does not really depend on having a clean distinction between these logical steps for the time being, so I did not introduce a new versioning step. I'm certainly fine revisiting that if it helps coming up with a different perspective.