On Mon, Feb 2, 2015, at 03:40 PM, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > Yes, and? > Point one: ID3 won, it is generally supported. Insisting on something > else IMHO is just being a pain on the user for little reason and nothing > we should strive to emulate.
I simply don't want to see ffmpeg output files that are broken when the "specs" are fairly straigtforward, and I don't want to make things harder for users. I never said I wanted the ID3 to be ignored. I think that if non-Vorbis comments exist, and Vorbis comments are missing, then converting them to Vorbis comment would be the best solution. If both exist then ignore the non-Vorbis comments. I admit I don't know how challenging that may or may not be. Either way, I like the idea of a warning or info informing the user whatever we do. > Point two: If despite that warning a ID3 tag exists, it seems sensible to > assume it does so for a good reason and shouldn't be ignored. The "good reason" being a crappy tagger? I wonder what the percentage is of flacs with only ID3 or whatever, only Vorbis comment, or a mix. I have no idea. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
