[vorbis] Tag changes

[Beni Cherniavksy]

On 2002-04-10, David K. Gasaway wrote:

> On 10 Apr 2002 at 14:10, Beni Cherniavksy wrote:
>
> > A second reason is automatically correct sorting.
>
> Actually, after a little break from the discussion, I see now that this
> is not necessarily true.  ISO 8601 supports a wide variety of dates.
> They would only be directly sortable if every ogg in question used the
> very same variation of ISO 8601.  So, a stricter format would be
> required, such as the one at the W3C site that Ben linked.
>
Nobody in his right mind would use 2001W20-4 of 2001-050 - that's
completely unreadable for a human being except those who work in thiese
formats all the time...  People writing 02-04-13 should be shot at least
once in a hundred years :-).

Incomplete data like 2001 or 2001-02 should obviously be allowed.

The word "must" should not appear in the document IMO.  For example I can
write 19?7-03-04 if I didn't hear well and keep it like this until I find
out...  Possibilites for scratching notes are endless, this should only be
a strong recomendation and any programs that break on outstanding tags are
broken.

> Second, sorting is not trivial if more than one date is associated with
> a file.
>
First define how do you _want_ them to be sorted at all in this case...
Probably you want one date, so how sorting by first date tag present and
arrnging them manually to be most-signifacant-date-first in the files
would work...  Except when you want to sort by recording date on Mondays
and by mixing date on Wednesdays...  Something like

vorbiscomment -l *.ogg | grep -i 'date=.* mix' | sort -d = -f 2 | \
cut -d = -f 2-

(modulo correct switches ;=) could do the job.

> Third (I keep adding as I go along :), because DATE can have further
> information, you have to be careful if sorting by additional fields.

Consider puting the additional information in a separate DATE tag if this
matter to you.  If you sort in unix you can trom that additional
informtaion with some easy pipe...

> The date portion would need to be extracted before using it as a basis
> for a sort.  For example, to sort by date then performer, any
> descriptive date information would skew the sort, because it has
> precedence over performer.  Instead, the date would have to be
> extracted first - supposing the user *didn't* want the sort to include
> the extra DATE information.


-- 
Beni Cherniavsky <cben at tx.technion.ac.il>

<p>--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.