[ID3 Dev] 'Extending' ID3 V2.4

[Andy Kernahan]

Guys,

the ID3v2.4 spec is 5 1/2 years old and most commercial media players still 
don't support it.
Any talk of creating a new ID3 standard (even though it would be nice) is 
fruitless.

Sorry to be so pessimistic.

    Andy.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michal Vician" <id3v2 at audiott.com>
To: <id3v2 at id3.org>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [ID3 Dev] 'Extending' ID3 V2.4


>> ...In this case specifically, I can certainly imagine an ID3 spec
>> that would be possible to implement completely, with less code,
>> without reducing the functionality provided.
>
> As far as I'm concerned I don't have any problems with code lenght.
> But if have you any concrete ideas (I mean something like a sketch of new
> ID3 version), just post them. Maybe we can move ID3 spec forward.
>
> Best regards
> Miso
>
>> On Thursday 09 February 2006 22:16, Michal Vician wrote:
>>> Can't see the merit of deprecating frames. ID3v2 is proposed so frames
>>> you
>>> would like to deprecate doesn't limit/restrict you in any way. There is
>>> no
>>> need to deprecate them. So why do they annoy you?
>>
>> Three notes:
>>
>> - I'm mostly just babbling about what I would like to see for an ID3v2.5
>> or
>> ID3v3, so take this as such.  I don't actually expect either of those
>> versions happen since it's been about 5 years since the last ID3 
>> revision.
>>  I
>> certainly don't expect a 2.4.1 or something to deprecate frames.
>>
>> - For the moment I do just ignore them in my implementation.  They're
>> parsed
>> as an "unknown frame".
>>
>> - It's really about complexity and cleanliness.   ID3v2 is too complex 
>> for
>> what it achieves (saying this as a person who has implemented several tag
>> formats).  In theory, an ID3 spec could do basically everything that 
>> ID3v2
>> does now and be much easier to implement completely.
>>
>> Basically a spec is only as good as its implementations.  If portions of 
>> a
>> spec are wholesale ignored across many implementations, then it's 
>> probably
>> fair to say that the spec is too complicated.  In this case specifically,
>> I
>> can certainly imagine an ID3 spec that would be possible to implement
>> completely, with less code, without reducing the functionality provided.
>> Adding more frames would just, in my opinion, increase the amount of 
>> ID3v2
>> that would be ignored by implementors.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Scott
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
> 



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