[vorbis] (Classical) Request for Standardization of expanded TAGS

[Jonathan Walther]

Hm, might the DISCID tag not be sufficient, inasmuch as it uniquely
identifies the disc, even if its within a box set?  If not, I'd lean
toward a DISCNUMBER tag.

Jonathan

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:43:29PM -0000, Steve Tregidgo wrote:
>On Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:05 PM, Beni Cherniavksy 
>[SMTP:cben at techunix.technion.ac.il] wrote:
>> A disknumber for multi-disk recorings was requested once.  Maybe `2-7'
>> in TRACKNUMBER meaning 2nd disk, 7th track is better.
>
>That sounds good.  The alternative would seem to be to add " (disc X)" to 
>the end of the ALBUM value for multi-disc recordings, which doesn't seem 
>like a clean use of the fields to me.  An album that comes on several discs 
>would show up as multiple albums when grouped/sorted by human-readable 
>fields (ie excluding freedb ID etc).
>
>I think the suggested format is better than the use of, say, DISKNUMBER 
>(which adds, IMO, an explicit level of hierarchy to track info in the 
>context of albums).  Or has this been discussed before and I've missed it 
>(I subscribed to this list mid-October so that's quite likely)?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: part
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 797 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20011206/53d21403/part.pgp