Re: Cover art

2009/4/4 [email protected] <[email protected]>:
>> when writing back to the file and SHOULD therefore also delete the existing
>> COVERART comment from the file (in order to avoid duplicating the embedded
>
> While I see the point, it doesn't sound like a good idea to do it
> without letting
> the user specifically ask for it.

Yes, I also think that specifying what /should/ be done with other
comments isn't the best idea because you rapidly increase the amount
of things that implementors are expected to do.  We might want to
suggest how a COVERART tag could be converted to
METADATA_PICTURE_BLOCK if an application wants to provide that:

1. Decode the COVERART tag and check the signature to determine
whether it is an allowed type.  Lossless conversion from disallowed
types to allowed types can be carried out.
2. Fill out the FLAC block with the picture data and correct MIME
type.  Supplying data dimensions is optional.
3. In the absence of other information APIC type 'other' should be
used.  Applications may want to allow users to select a default type
or specify the type to use.
4. Encode the new picture block, remove the COVERART tag from the
comments and add the METADATA_BLOCK_PICTURE entry.
5. If multiple tags are being converted the order of the
METADATA_BLOCK_PICTURE tags should be the same as that of the COVERART
tags they are replacing.

Should expect to encounter COVERART tags doesn't seem to add much, but
a note above the specification that we recommend all new embedded art
follows the METADATA_BLOCK_PICTURE format would be meaningful.

-- 
imalone