[vorbis] Total Tracks Tag?

[Nathan I. Sharfi]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, nils wrote:

> heyas-
>
> I believe there is a need for a standard vorbis comment
> field to encode "Total Number of Tracks (on a CD)".
>
> Why we need this --------------------
> - Existing Vorbis programs already implement this,
>   inconsistently, and hence don't interoperate.
> These seems the key reason to me.
>
> - MP3s include this

MP3s don't; ID3v2 does. Not everyone uses ID3v2.

> - Some software (e.g., iTunes) uses this information,
>   e.g., to display "Track 4 of 13" or whatever.

All the current iTunes plugins for Vorbis won't be able to use a
standardized track number field; it's off-limits to plugin developers.

> - It's easy to support, and easy to automate in ripping
>   programs.

Undisputed.

> - It's a natural addition to the existing tags.

Not really; one could just as easily use "TRACKNUMBER=4 of 13", which would
arguably be more natural. Whether this or the ID3v2-style "TRACKNUMBER=4/13"
is a better proposal than yours is open to a debate that I'd rather not
participate in. I'm sure Segher will extol the virtues of plausibly
deliberately machine-unparseable comments :)

> Two programs I used were "Ogg Drop", a ripper/encoder
> and "Vorbis Rage", a tagger.

(snip)

> Unfortunately, these used different fields for "Total # of
> Tracks", so I became rather confused -- and regardless, they
> didn't talk to each other.

<p><p>After looking at the screenshot for Vorbis Rage, I can see why this is a
problem for tools that don't allow generalized comment editing.

> Ogg Drop X used TRACKTOTAL
> while Vorbis Rage used TOTALTRACKS
>
> Either is fine and natural, but we need a standard.

We? I personally don't care if we do or not except that it'll bloat the
vorbis comment standard a bit for something that I've never needed to use.

IMNSHO, it'd be best to have the nouturn.com and chaotic software guys work
this out on their own (possibly with your prodding to reach a consensus).

<p>> I propose:
> TRACKTOTAL for "Total Number of Tracks on this Disc"
> ...and also, by analogy
> DISCTOTAL for "Total Number of Discs in the Collection"
> (to be pro-active ;-)

I'd hold off on DISCTOTAL (or an equivalent) until someone asks for it.

> A quick search of the vorbis and vorbis-dev archives don't
> turn up any discussion of this, hence this email.

IMO, this is a clue that very few people (need to) care about a common
format for storing the total number of tracks in a CD. Possible reasons
why:

(1) Few people have tools that will stuff the total number of tracks into
    vorbis-style comments.
(2) Few people care enough to add in the total number of tracks to each
    individual file in their collection.

In my case, my ripping toolset (rip to wav,
os.system('flac -8 --replay-gain --delete-input-file *.wav'), masstag with
foobar2000) doesn't automate the creation of a TRACKTOTAL field; it must be
manually entered, much like the COMPOSER field.* I simply don't care enough
to add that sort of stuff by myself.

<p>* COMPOSER was kicked around by Jon Walther and co. and it was eventually
decided (at the request of the "no new tags" crowd) that the Official Way to
store the composer of a track is through "PERFORMER=Aaron Copland
(composer)" or something like that.  Considering I don't share my collection
with anyone, I figure that pleasing myself with machine-selectable tags is
more important than a slavish devotion to a set of tag recommendations.

> So does this:
> ----------------------------
> TRACKTOTAL
>    the total number of tracks on the CD
> DISCTOTAL
>    if part of a multi-disc album, put the total number of discs here
> ----------------------------
> ...seem like a reasonable addition to the recommended tags?
>
> best,
>   -nils

In case I've obscured my points with scads of incessant rambling:

TRACKTOTAL seems reasonable since there are programs out there that don't
allow freeform editing of tags and do want a slot to store that information
in.

DISCTOTAL isn't a reasonable addition since nobody's asked for it. If you
want to use DISCTOTAL for your own collection, that's perfectly fine;
however, if you have no interoperability problems stemming from different
uninteroperable tools, I'd recommend against specifying  things simply
because one can.

Bear in mind, however, that reasonableness isn't a guarantee of
standardization; I consider COMPOSER reasonable, but those who disagreed
eventually won out.

        --Nathan
          (hoping he doesn't start Yet Another Tagging Flamewar)
--- >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.