Field names: Difference between revisions

From XiphWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Added METADATA_BLOCK_PICTURE)
(Added note about deleting this page)
Line 1: Line 1:
This page describes a proposed update to the minimal list of standard field names in the [http://xiph.org/vorbis/doc/v-comment.html Vorbis I specification]. Please keep discussion confined to [[Talk:Field names|the Discussion page]].
This page describes a proposed update to the minimal list of standard field names in the [http://xiph.org/vorbis/doc/v-comment.html Vorbis I specification]. Please keep discussion confined to [[Talk:Field names|the Discussion page]].
After the proposal has been discussed, and accepted or rejected, this page should be deleted.


== Analysis ==
== Analysis ==

Revision as of 12:41, 14 July 2009

This page describes a proposed update to the minimal list of standard field names in the Vorbis I specification. Please keep discussion confined to the Discussion page.

After the proposal has been discussed, and accepted or rejected, this page should be deleted.

Analysis

To determine what field names are being used in the wild, the following resources were analysed:

The analysis has been presented as an Excel spreadsheet (note that it contains two sheets).

Proposal

The following modest list of additions to the minimal list in the specification is proposed:

  1. COMPOSER
  2. TRACKTOTAL – compliments the existing TRACKNUMBER
  3. DISCNUMBER – used if part of a multi-disc album
  4. DISCTOTAL – total number of discs in a multi-disc album
  5. SOURCEMEDIA – recommended because different field names are in use
  6. ENCODED-BY – see VorbisComment page
  7. ENCODER – see VorbisComment page
  8. METADATA_BLOCK_PICTURE – see VorbisComment page

The field name SOURCEMEDIA could be dropped is Xiph does not wish to prescribe field names.

The field name REMIXER is not proposed as its use is covered by the existing VERSION.