[vorbis] Tag changes

[Jonathan Walther]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:10:32PM -0700, David Gasaway wrote:
>Yes, I responded to that.  Anyway, I still don't see why the original 
>strong recommendation can't stand.  I don't *think* that Monty was 
>trying to lay down absolutely that it should always be in the ISO format.

Someone on this list posted a link to Montys post where he mentioned
ISO 8601.  As Monty said, where a standard exists, it's good to use it.
Don't reinvent the wheel!  The current language of the standard doesn't
prevent you from putting whatever date format you want in the DATE tag;
you just have to do it after putting it in in the ISO format.

>Sigh.  There's been too much changing of minds today.

I don't think anything has really changed today.  We've been going
through an iterative process which has been converging for some time now
to a maximally useful and acceptable standard.  Today I think we
converged a little bit more :-)


-- 
                     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/20020409/1d1ce367/part.pgp