<sigh>ID3v2 picture standards

[Spoon]

I need to vent...ID3v2 has a standard for album art, which I am making head and tail of, except get this: Music match seems to half support the standard, but writes the picture into into another frame. iTunes (smegging Apple again!) seem to just write their album art into a comment field of their own design.

*** this is a quick look at each program, I could be wrong.

So there you have it, 2 of the most major programs write album art wrong, and there is a need to support 3! different standards for the same type, venting over.

[donny]

Re: &lt;sigh&gt;ID3v2 picture standards

ah seems alot like the browser wars... sometimes you just have to wonder why can't people read the standards...

though in browsers pages can in extreme cases become unreadable, and mostly just look a bit weird whilst with these music files we could end up with usselles (unplayable) data...

[gameplaya15143]

Re: &lt;sigh&gt;ID3v2 picture standards

i didnt know id3v2 supported album art in the specification (ive never looked at the specs..so..)

and thanks for the info i have new reasons why musicmatch and itunes suck :D

[Otto42]

Re: &lt;sigh&gt;ID3v2 picture standards

I need to vent...ID3v2 has a standard for album art, which I am making head and tail of, except get this: Music match seems to half support the standard, but writes the picture into into another frame. iTunes (smegging Apple again!) seem to just write their album art into a comment field of their own design.

*** this is a quick look at each program, I could be wrong.

iTunes should be using the normal APIC frame for ID3v2.3 tags, no? Seems to be doing just that, on my files.

Don't know what it does for other ID3 versions though.

[Spoon]

Re: &lt;sigh&gt;ID3v2 picture standards

It seems to be APIC.