[vorbis] Tag changes

[Ben Pearre]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:20:49PM -0400, John Wedoff wrote:
> As for me, I'd love to hear a legitimate reason *not* to use ISO 8601, but
> I'm not counting on it.

Now I'm just being a troublemaker, but here's one:

DATE is in the multiple-tags section, which leaves us to guess what
the dates signify.  These examples are useful, but not compliant:
"DATE=1996-02-11 (recorded)", "DATE=1993 (composed)" etc.  Perhaps
"DATE should be ISO 8601, followed by an optional comment" or some
such.

Cheers :)
-Ben

ps. The new definition for PART does indeed look much improved!


-- 
bwpearre at alumni.princeton.edu                http://hebb.mit.edu/~ben


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: part
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 233 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20020409/ff90a68c/part.pgp