<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Stephen F. Booth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:me@sbooth.org">me@sbooth.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/10/29 Lukáš Lalinský <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lalinsky@gmail.com" target="_blank">lalinsky@gmail.com</a>></span><div class="im"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div></div><div>I'm not sure if this is the best solution. It will read the tag from</div></div>
'id3 ', but then write a duplicate 'ID3 '. We should either<br>
consistently use the original chunk ID, or remove existing 'id3 '.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>You're right- I realized this after I sent the patch and took a look at the save() code. Having both an 'ID3 ' chunk and an 'id3 ' chunk would be bad.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm not aware of a standard for the chunk id, so I think the best thing to do in this case is to preserve the original one. But standardization is also a good argument so I'm on the fence.</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><div>I've attached a patch that will keep the existing name of the ID3 chunk.</div><div><br></div><div>Stephen</div>