On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:07:16PM +0200, Frederic Devernay wrote:
> Even the authors if id3v2.3 preferred stopping at 125, whereas they
> certainly has the complete list available... Why shouldn't rockbox also
> stop at 125? That way, we would stick to "official" publications.
>
> I'm pretty sure that winamp's gcomplete genre list wouldn't be accepted in
> a RFC...

The thing is, pretty much every implemetation out there covers 1-147 and
that's why Rockbox should as well. Anyway, ID3v2.3 is outdated, and the
genre list wasn't really meant to be used. Notice that ID3v2.4 only
includes 1-79[1] (Section 7.A). Should we remove 79-147 then?

ID3 is hardly an official standard (not even "official" if you ask me),
certainly ID3v1 isn't. The genres 1-147 are accepted by all the tools I
know, and I see no reason why Rockbox should leave out some on purpose.
That'd just be stupid. Besides, there are some of the >125 ones that
make sense.

In my eyes, lacking these genres is a bug that should be fixed.

> I'm also damn happy not to use winamp anymore!!!

If that's because of this issue, I suggest you team up with this guy[2]
and take on AOL, then.

[1] http://www.id3.org/id3v2.4.0-frames.txt
[2] http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=23431

-- 
Jonas H
rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk
                                                  -- Random .sigs suck
_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox