[ID3 Dev] 'Extending' ID3 V2.4

[Paul Grebenc]

>why use a binary representation of data containing in files why just
>not use xml? and why storing this data inside the files and not
>providing a unified database for fast access and that will store all
>needed information?

I'd also like to see XML used for a new version.  There is the argument 
that the tag can contain binary data, but it can be base64 encoded.  The 
increase in size is not that dramatic, and in practice, you've got to 
expect an increase in file size in any case, if you plan to attach a 2MB 
image to a 3MB MP3 file.  In practice, I don't think this would be a 
problem.

As for embedded devices, the world is advancing, and it will soon be (if 
it isn't already in cases) easier to deal with XML and unencoding 
base64'ed images, than it is to write code specific to a proprietary 
binary format.  (And v2.3.0 already exists, just as v1.1 does, for legacy 
devices.)

I fully agree that there are too many tag types in v2.  Too many of them 
are too esoteric, and/or badly designed (RVAD: Why is the number of bytes 
per adjustment variable, when 2^16 levels of adjustment are far, far more 
than enough.  And this in a tag you'll probably never see in the wild.).

Using XML would also allow for such niceties as the provision of standard 
schemas and transformations, for validating tags and upgrading to newer 
versions.

Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: id3v2-unsubscribe at id3.org
For additional commands, e-mail: id3v2-help at id3.org