[ID3 Dev] Moving forward on Chapter Frames

[Michal Vician]

> At 15:46 26/11/2005, you wrote:
>>> Any MP3 reader/library that doesn't handle unknown tags is poorly
>>> implemented *****and breaks the standard***** (at least v2.3 and v2.4
>>> -- I haven't read prior standards).
>>
>>What? Breaks the standard? I don't agree with you. There is nothing
>> stated
>>in ID3v2 specification that tag may contain other frames. There is only
>>allowance in custom frames (X,Y,Z), but nothing stated that my
>> application
>>should handle frames like "HAHA" or "TOOT".
>
> Michal,
>
> I'm not sure I agree. This is what it says in ID3 version 2.3.0:
>
>    "Identifiers beginning with "X", "Y" and "Z" are for experimental use
>    and free for everyone to use, without the need to set the
>    experimental bit in the tag header. Have in mind that someone else
>    might have used the same identifier as you. All other identifiers are
>    either used or reserved for future use."
>
> Where it says that all other identifiers are "reserved for future use" it
> must mean they are reserved within the context of ID3 version 2.3. This
> means that you might expect to find them in a future revision to version
> 2.3.
>
> In my experience I've found the following version 2.4 frames types inside
> version 2.3 tags e.g:
>    TDRL
>
> And I've found some frames that aren't defined in any ID3v2 specification:
>    WFED
>    TCMP
>    TGID
>    TDES
>    PCST
>
> If this is typical of what ID3 parsers will accept then it may be
> acceptable to allow Chapter frames in ID3 v2.3 and v2.4.
>
> Chris

> Where it says that all other identifiers are "reserved for future use" it
> must mean they are reserved within the context of ID3 version 2.3.

If it really means that all the other frames are reserved "within the
context of ID3v2.3" there is no reason to hesitate and you should release
an addendum which describes only the Chapter frames.

But, do bear in mind...
Doesn it really mean that I should expect that frames in ID3v2.3 ???

> ... This means that you might expect to find them in a
> future revision to version 2.3.

As you wrote: it only means that I should expect them in a FUTURE revision
to 2.3, but there is nothing stated that I should expect them in ID3v2.3
itself !
Thus I can't agree with the claim that applications which do not expect
that frames are "poorly implemented" or whatever and I think that these
applications certainly DON'T break the standard.

> And I've found some frames that aren't defined in any ID3v2 specification:
>    WFED
>    TCMP
>    TGID
>    TDES
>    PCST

As far as I'm concerned applications which write these frames to ID3v2.3
break the standard.

SUMMARY:
Everyone should agree with the following (and this is also what I'm trying
to say): There is no guarantee that all applications will behave normally
if there is CHAP/CTOC frame present in ID3v2.3 tag (Can anyone quarantee
that? NO!).
However, I agree that it would be much easier for everyone if the addendum
will be realeased rather than new version of ID3v2.

Now, what way would YOU choose ("addendum" <- or -> "new version") ???
Please, answer the question above as soon as possible so we can finish
this topic.

Kind regards
Miso


-- 
Michal Vician
id3v2 at audiott.com
http://www.audiott.com/


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