PATCH: Taglib 1.3.1 TAG extended

Clemens Wacha clemens.wacha at
Sat Jan 8 11:48:08 CET 2005

Scott Wheeler schrieb:
> On Saturday 08 January 2005 1:10, you wrote:
>>since I need taglib for my own project I have checked out its abilities
>>and found out that it doesnt match my needs for complete tag support. I
>>also need support for the following 3 fields:
>>- maximum number of tracks in set
>>- Media number (normaly cd number)
>>- maximum number of medias
>>- ID3V2 Standard allows TRCK to have a value of 3/12 to say its song 3
>>of 12. And there also is a Media field TPOS with the same properties.
>>- APE also supports all these fields
>>- OGG Xiphcomments Track= can also have 3/12
>>The only thing not so standard conformant is the Media= line I
>>"invented" for Xiphcomment since its not proposed but actually pretty
>>much obvious (at least for me :-)
> Not for me -- I actually had to look up what TPOS was before I had any idea 
> what you meant with "media".

> TagLib::Tag can't be extended (with virtual functions) until the next major 
> (2.0) TagLib release because of binary compatibility requirements.

Yes you are right. Then I will vote for this to go to version 2.0 of TagLib.

> That said, as this value isn't standard with any tag type except ID3v2 it 
> doesn't make sense to have it in the generic interface.  That class isn't 
> simply a convenience for TagLib users, it's meant to represent a reasonable 
> set of things that developers can expect to exist in most tags.

But thats the point. They DO exist in the tags AND are in the standard! 
That was the first thing I did. I read the standards of APE and Xiphcomment.
ID3V2 supports it
APE supports it
XiphComment supports it.

The only thing with XiphComment is that there is not yet a standard but 
only proposals. So to be 100% standards conformant we mustn't even use 
TITLENAME= in Xiphcomment since its only proposed and not defined. Ok... 
we could add MOD support to taglib and then strip ALL but Titlename to 
be as generic as possible....

I don't want to be offensive. I just saw that TagLibs "smallest set in 
common" is even smaller than it had to be. Please tell me what you think 
of it. (I will subscribe to taglib-devel to keep track of it)

I will checkout the cvs version and create proper diffs as soon as  I 
have time for it.

Best Regards

More information about the taglib-devel mailing list