Re: Tidy up of XiphWiki VorbisComment page

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:50 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think the summary table that Martin has been preparing (earlier in
>> this thread) is a good step towards making sense of the existing
>> proposals.
>>
>> Perhaps we could make some sort of process to choose the few proposed
>> tags which are already commonly used and designate them "official".
>
> Sure.  What an update has been waiting for is some one sane who isn't
> looking to cover every possible eventuality.

"Every possible eventuality", I would suggest,
is a job for structured metadata using XML.
This is also what M3F looks to have attempted,
although the initiative seems to have petered
out.

One problem with M3F was that the guy
working on it wanted it to replace
VorbisComments altogether.  This never
made any sense to me (which is why I kept
softening such statements in the XiphWiki) as
most users don't want "every possible
eventuality".

I am sane, but do not use VorbisComments
*at all*.  I therefore cannot do an update
without guidance.

>> There was recently a thread about album art where some kind of
>> consensus was reached and a format chosen. Perhaps you should respond
>> to that ...
>
> I read and I think I even participated.  I'm still worried about it tho.

Er ... I thought official Xiph policy on cover art
was to use the METADATA_BLOCK_PICTURE
tag, visit:
http://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisComment#Cover_art

It seems to have been tested with many
software and hardware players (with only a
couple of problems), visit:
http://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisComment#Playback_tests

Maybe I am reading too much into the
presence of something on a page in the
XiphWiki.  I read this as official Xiph policy.
Otherwise why have a page on display?

Regards,
Martin
-- 
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/