[vorbis] Tag changes

[Jonathan Walther]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:55:32AM -0700, David Gasaway wrote:
>I believe you only need a PARTNUMBER when both PARTNAME and PARTNUMBER 
>are singletons.  When PARTNAME is a multiple, PARTNUMBER is implied by 
>the sequence of the PARTNAME tags.  PARTNUMBER is needed when the work 
>is divided into files, one per part.

Putting that extra logic into Ogg tag display programs sounds more
complicated that just running with the current definition of PART.  Ben
seems to have indicated he doesn't mind the current PART solution.
Having a tag that you can only use when another tag exists in unary
quantity seems really broken, especially when existing mechanisms
obviate the need for it.

>And PLEASE tell me why ISO 8601 was chosen for the DATE format.  I don't 
>recall having that discussion.  The only threads I remember are the ones 
>I linked yesterday, and those are decidedly against a format for the date.

I don't recall you providing any links yesterday.  Some months ago someone
posted to the list "the date format should follow the ISO standard", and
they were even kind enough to provide a link to it.  Noone has protested
until now.  Where a standard exists, why not use it?

Jonathan


-- 
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2


-------------- 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/20020409/fd27c5c1/part.pgp