grommet Wrote: > I also keep ID3v1.1 in my MP3 content in parallel with IDv2.3. In the > "big OS" world, virtually everything does deal with IDv2.3... I find > ID3v1.1 only comes in handy for consumer electronic devices.
That's not universal, then. That's just common. grommet Wrote: > As I said, I don't like either... but, like it or not, ID3v2.3 is as > universal as you get and I don't expect that to change. ID3v2.4 was > somewhat still-born, partially because the original id3lib never added > support for it... so it was universally ignored initially. I > personally find the .4 version more "open to interpretation" than .3, > but that's my opinion... :) .3 is dangerous. That, apart from anything else, is a good reason not to use it. I didn't say I didn't like ID3v2; I do like it. I dislike the proliferation of the poor and dangerous .3 standard, and particularly despise the need to place the tag at the head of the file that .3 (and every single tagger in existance that writes .4) uses. Both of these issues are addressed in .4 and thus it is likeable. -- gerph ------------------------------------------------------------------------ gerph's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1819 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26483 _______________________________________________ beta mailing list beta@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/beta
