<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>eh, sounds bad, maybe in future we use xml ... but frames
are too many...<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Why do you think it’s a bad idea? Do you mean there are too
many frames in the existing standard or in the idea I discussed? (I only
gave an example of six base frames.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>- let's create a blog, ID3 Blog, in blogspot or another, were we
talk about what we talking here.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>What about the mailing list don’t you like?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>Why WMP can using AMG, iTunes, winamp use CDDB, in terms
of music info, why not <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>using an library too for read/write info "powered by"
ID3.org?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>There are groups out there that are already doing this. The two
that spring to mind are MusicBrainz and FreeDB. Besides, the scope of
id3.org (as I understand it) is to define and promote the standard for
imbedding metadata in a file, not to be the *<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>source</span></b>*
of that data.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Mitchell S. Honnert<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>www.UltraID3Lib.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Ion Todirel [mailto:iontodirel@yahoo.co.uk]
<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Saturday, February 11, 2006
3:35 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">id3v2@id3.org</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [ID3 Dev] 'Extending'
ID3 V2.4</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>eh, sounds bad, maybe in future we use xml ... but frames are
too many...<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>anyway, i have two sugestions:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- let's create a blog, ID3 Blog, in blogspot or another, were we talk
about what we talking here.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- in futere let's create a free ID3.org library for standartisation
purpose. Why WMP can using AMG, iTunes, winamp use CDDB, in terms of
music info, why not using an library too for read/write info "powered
by" ID3.org? So who want to use ID3 she will use a ID3 ID3 library. We
can develop using COM, .NET and Java, anywone will be happy. Why just
providing a list of library but not create one? <br>
<br>
<b><i><span style='font-weight:bold;font-style:italic'>"Mitchell S.
Honnert" <<st1:PersonName w:st="on">mitch@honnert.com</st1:PersonName>></span></i></b>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>For what it's worth,
here's my two cents...<br>
<br>
While I think the highly complex, specialized nature of the ID3v2 spec can<br>
work against its uniform adoption, I'm not a big fan of a wholesale<br>
replacement of the frame collection paradigm with XML. But what about a<br>
hybrid? What if the next gen version of ID3 limited itself to a few
"base"<br>
frame types, one of which was a frame flagged to contain XML? <br>
<br>
So, to throw out some ideas, these "base" frames might be...<br>
<br>
TextFrame - what's now the "T" frames i.e. Artist, Title, Album<br>
<br>
NumberFrame - a strongly typed frame to store numbers i.e. Track Number,<br>
Year, Beats Per Minutes, Duration (MS)<br>
<br>
BinaryFrame - generically store pictures or any BLOB's/GEOB's<br>
<br>
TextCollectionFrame - a list of text values i.e. Genres<br>
<br>
DictionaryFrame - a collection of text key/value pairs i.e. Involved People.<br>
<br>
XMLFrame - basically the same as TextFrame but flagged as storing XML.<br>
<br>
You'd still have tag ID's to identify what's in each of these frames, but<br>
all data would fit into one of the handful of base frames.<br>
<br>
In designing my ID3 library, I used a set of base classes in an OO hierarchy<br>
to minimize the amount of duplicate code I'd have. So, when I'm<br>
implementing a new frame, I always begin by thinking "Can I just start off<br>
by inheriting one of my existing base Frame classes or do I have to start<br>
from scratch?" If the new standard had a small number of these
"base"<br>
frames -- and relied on the XML frame as a catchall for the more complex<br>
metadata -- then implementers could write the base encoding/decoding code<br>
for these frames very quickly. <br>
<br>
It would only be if you needed to access the more complex frames (read<br>
"rarely used" frames) that you'd have to parse XML or use a DOM. For<br>
example, if this style of ID3 format were in place, the addition of a<br>
Chapter frame wouldn't have required the creation of a whole new base frame<br>
type. Instead of having to focus on the binary format of this new frame, we<br>
would just have had to agree on an XML schema. Sure, anyone implementing<br>
this new frame would have had to write new code to handle the specific XML<br>
format, but -- here's the important part -- it wouldn't require you to<br>
revisit the area of your library where binary parsing is done. "You want
to<br>
implement a ChapterFrame? Fine, inherit the XMLFrame and parse the (Friend)<br>
XMLFrame.XML property."<br>
<br>
Personally, what my goal for a next generation ID3 standard would be is an<br>
elegant combination of support for simple, commonly-used metadata and<br>
complex, rarely-used metadata. The basic implementation would be so simple<br>
and streamlined that it would promote a uniformity of application. But it<br>
would also support complex metadata, if that's what you needed. I think<br>
using a small set of "base" frames which included one to support XML
could<br>
meet this goal. <br>
<br>
Sure, the current IDv2 can support almost any metadata requirement<br>
imaginable, but the learning curve is very steep. In theory this shouldn't<br>
matter. In designing a metadata tag format, you shouldn't have to account<br>
for bad (but popular) implementations that all but render the standard<br>
useless. But in reality, you do have to worry about the learning curve of<br>
your format and how it will affect implementation and adoption. Creating<br>
something with an "Easy to learn, hard to master" learning curve
would go a<br>
long way to reducing the number of corrupt implementations.<br>
<br>
I could go one with my pros (and some of the cons) of this idea, but I've<br>
already rambled on too much, so I thought I'd throw this out there for now.<br>
<br>
Mitchell S. Honnert<br>
www.UltraID3Lib.com<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Paul Taylor [mailto:paul_t100@fastmail.fm] <br>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 5:11 AM<br>
To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">id3v2@id3.org</st1:PersonName><br>
Subject: Re: [ID3 Dev] 'Extending' ID3 V2.4<br>
<br>
Completely agree XML must be the way to go it would be so much easier to <br>
enforcer validation,implement a libray and be able to view directly in a <br>
human readable form. MusicBrainz (ww.musicbrainz.org) uses XML RDF to <br>
store its track data maybe this could be used as the basis of an XML <br>
Format. I know there are a number of formats additional to ID3v2, do any <br>
of these already use XML ?<br>
<br>
Paul Grebenc wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
>> Another "problem" with XML is that it is so flexible when it
comes to<br>
>> the text encoding of the actual document. Having to support so many<br>
>> text encodings can be a big problem, especially in the embedded space.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The specification could dictate that the tag has to use UTF-8. Or, it <br>
> would be just as easy to not dictate that and let anyone use their <br>
> preference. As it stands, ID3v2 supports Unicode, but I doubt there <br>
> are very many embedded devices that will correctly display anything <br>
> outside the standard ASCII character set. There are probably enough <br>
> desktop applications that support ID3v2 that won't do the right thing <br>
> with Unicode, as it is.<br>
><br>
> I don't want to argue this point forever. I just want to express <br>
> three opinions:<br>
><br>
> 1. Parsing XML without a full-blown parser/DOM support does not have <br>
> to be hard.<br>
><br>
> 2. A new version should target the embedded devices that will be <br>
> designed a few years from now as the minimum embedded platform. <br>
> Existing devices aren't going to retroactively support any new <br>
> version, regardless of how simple it is, so there's no value in <br>
> wondering whether a three year old 32MB keychain player can 'handle it'.<br>
><br>
> 3. XML has some disadvantages, but the one enormous advantage it has, <br>
> considering that half the traffic on this list is moaning about bad <br>
> ID3v2 implementations, is the ability it provides to universally <br>
> enforce validation.<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: id3v2-unsubscribe@id3.org<br>
> For additional commands, e-mail: id3v2-help@id3.org<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: id3v2-unsubscribe@id3.org<br>
For additional commands, e-mail: id3v2-help@id3.org<br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: id3v2-unsubscribe@id3.org<br>
For additional commands, e-mail: id3v2-help@id3.org<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=1 width="100%" align=center>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/photos/*http:/uk.photos.yahoo.com/"><b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>Yahoo! Photos</span></b></a> – <font color=red><span
style='color:red'>NEW</span></font>, now offering a <a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/photos/*http:/uk.photos.yahoo.com/">quality
print service</a> from just 8p a photo.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>