bruns added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> astippich wrote in taglibwriter.cpp:70 > > Taglib does not "handle this nicely". For APE and Xiph, it just accepts > > *any* unknown key and uses it verbatim, while for MP4 and ASF it rejects > > any unknown key. > > And so do APE::Tag::setItem and OGG::XiphComment::addField ...? btw, also > perfectly legal, APE and Xiph allow writing arbitrary tags, while the others > do not. > > > The setProperties() is also quite inconsistent, for APE and ASF it only > > removes items which have an empty value, while for Xiph, the properties are > > completely replaced. > > Xiph explicitly allows multiple entries per key, which need to be removed > when writing. > > > As soon as you add support for a property where APE and Xiph key naming > > differs, or is only supported by one, you will require two functions anyway. > > TagLib automatically translates different keys from APE to "common names", > e.g. DISC->DISCNUMBER etc. > > I would really like to hand off manual tag handling to TagLib as much as > possible. The library solely responsible for reading tags usually knows > better how to handle the tags than we do (with a few exceptions to the rule > of course). By using the type specific function you signal you are aware of the differences between the two, and supply the appropriate data. RATING is **not handled** by the properties interface, it just works by coincidence, not by design. In case Taglib properly handles a tag, I am not against using it, as said several times. This is the case for DISC, but not for RATING. REPOSITORY R286 KFileMetaData REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D18601 To: astippich, bruns, mgallien, broulik, cfeck Cc: kde-frameworks-devel, #baloo, gennad, domson, ashaposhnikov, michaelh, astippich, spoorun, ngraham, bruns, abrahams
