Re: Feedback about Vorbis Comment Chapter Extension

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> I don't remember why we gave chapters start and end time, but I have
> no problem with dropping the end time if that makes it implementable.

The ranges are kind of a nuisance, but probably not a deal killer, 
provided clear rules for their interpretation and use are given.  I don't 
think they're necessary, however, and getting rid of them would eliminate 
the "hole" problem.

(I do have to ask, why "-->"?  That's an awfully clumsy token.)

What really needs to go is the whole chapter hierarchy concept.  Or, it 
needs to be rewritten so as to define hierarchies explicitly rather than 
implicitly.  I suspect that's what prompted the, "This specification is 
too stupid...to implement," comment.

Also, I'd like to see the "CHAPTER" prefix replaced with something a 
little more idiosyncratic.  If nothing else, it would allow some leeway 
to develop a more flexible syntax.

Ultimately, I think there should be two specifications.  One for a simple 
table-of-contents that anyone can implement, and another for detailed 
nonlinear indices.  The currently proposed specification doesn't seem to 
know which of the two it's attempting to describe.