PDA

View Full Version : A new tagging standard for matroska ....


ChristianHJW
24th December 2003, 22:48
Hi guys,

we are in the process of redefining the tagging system in matroska, mainly because we believe nobody is actively using it. However, if we do so the old tags may become spec incompliant, depending on how we do it.

For this reason, here my question to you :

Are you using the tagging system in matroska currently ?

ssjkakaroto
25th December 2003, 00:15
hey there christian, i voted in option 2 because i only use mmg (mkvtoolnix) to create mkv and mka files and tagging there needs a outside file (or is there a option i don't know?), vdubmod has a easy tagging system but i think it would be easier to do the muxing and tagging in one place

gizmotech
25th December 2003, 05:19
I'm gonna agree with #2. I use mmg to create my mkv files, and without a ready easy to use way of tagging the files I have no reason to do so.

As well, from what I understand there is no interface for players to read the tags anyways, which makes me wonder why I would goto the trouble of adding extra frivulous information. It might be different if I were doing professional work, but as a backup artist I really have no reason to go out of my way to create a tag file and add it to the encode.

Gizmo.

tiki4
25th December 2003, 11:50
Well,

I voted for 2. The formulation is a little bit harsh, but I never saw the fun in using an external file to do some tagging. Actually I'd prefer a system for MKA that can be used like the APE2 tags of Musepack. For example through switches like '--title' (already there) at muxing stage in mkvmerge.

Cheers,

tiki4

ChristianHJW
25th December 2003, 15:22
Who is the one vote that is using the tags i ask ? Can you briefly tell us what tags you were using, and for what purpose ? If we provide you with a tool to change old tags to new tags, could you use it on your files, IF we decided to make a new tagging system ?

Latexxx
25th December 2003, 18:53
I'm not the one but I'd like to see a tag editor similar to the foobar's default editor.

Tuesday
25th December 2003, 21:20
I voted #2, although it does sound rather harsh. I dont really need them desperatly so i'd only do so if it was an easy addition.

Maybe another suggestion for mosu's excellent mmg?

outlyer
26th December 2003, 00:31
I use as much tags as I can fullfill (and have patience to...), option #4 (nope, I'm not the one you asked for, Chris :p) although it's more a #3.5.

I don't mind them being changed but making the old ones not spec-compliant seems to me a lot like anti-matroska; things should be easy to add/replace without breaking old specs. IMHO old tagging should be deprecated but not incompliant.

As for which ones I use... I wrote some crappy code to generate the XML file so I added them as needed out of the top of my head: multilegal, multicomments, multititle and encoder related.

Again I don't mind them being obsolete and not handled by any player, but don't like the idea of some older matroska feature becoming spec incompliant.

BetaBoy
26th December 2003, 01:52
outlyer... we all agree on that point about being non-compliant. It is a trade-off... and the move would have to be done now before we get to 1.0.... on the positive side it would allow third party developers to adopt the tagging system without having to code 2000+ lines.

jcsston
26th December 2003, 03:06
Originally posted by Latexxx
I'm not the one but I'd like to see a tag editor similar to the foobar's default editor.
One of the main features of the Matroska Shell Ext is complete tag editing.
It can also export XML tag files usable by mkvmerge, and can import AVI INFO tags and some MP3 ID3 tags.

IMHO old tagging should be deprecated but not incompliant.
I am planning on adding a feature to the MSE to convert the old-style tags to the new tagging format, if there are enough people with already tagged files that they want updated.

on the positive side it would allow third party developers to adopt the tagging system without having to code 2000+ lines.:p
Some stats from the MSE codebase ;)
Tag User Interface 3300 lines
Tag Reading 1100
Tag Writing 700

With the fb2k plugin using the new tagging system.
UI N/A (fb2k handles this)
Reading 220
Writing 120
:eek:

Latexxx
26th December 2003, 10:45
Originally posted by jcsston
With the fb2k plugin using the new tagging system.
UI N/A (fb2k handles this)
Reading 220
Writing 120
:eek:

Do you really got a fb2k plugin? When am I going to be able to mux whole album to one file with some error correction data and play it in foobar?

ChristianHJW
26th December 2003, 10:45
Originally posted by jcsston
Some stats from the MSE codebase ;)
Tag User Interface 3300 lines
Tag Reading 1100
Tag Writing 700
With the fb2k plugin using the new tagging system.
UI N/A (fb2k handles this)
Reading 220
Writing 120
:eek:

... seee guys, thats the problem. We fear nobody will implement the matroska tagging system into their 3rd party apps, because its too much work to fully support it :( .... but this means, if we want to make things easier for them, we have to drop the old system completely :( :( ....

Atamido
26th December 2003, 11:10
Originally posted by Latexxx
Do you really got a fb2k plugin? When am I going to be able to mux whole album to one file with some error correction data and play it in foobar? Already done. (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=16692&) I made an example file (http://www.jkfanclub.com:81/ELiZA%20WREN%20-%20Living%20on%20the%20Outside.mka) a few days ago that shows it off. Single MP3 stream using chapters to mark where the songs are.

Asmodian
30th December 2003, 20:38
I am currently using tags but not for anything important, I wouldn't mind if they were not shown using a new tagging system if the files were still playable. Third party support is much more important. (does this affect attachments? - I assume not...).

Thanks,
Asmodian

unmei
30th December 2003, 22:43
nope, attachments are not related to tagging. Thus no fear, they are not lost.

I used some extended tags in a handful of encodes, but i don't mind if they are lost. Having to reencode the movie, on the other hand, were quite unlucky - given their playlength and a p3/600 encoding box :)

mikeX
31st December 2003, 04:52
hi,
i can't say i have really been using the matroska container apart from a few file size comparisons with my previous container of preference, ogm.
the reason was mostly cause i hadn't looked into matroska deep enough, until recently that is, when i found out that
matroska is really cool! really great work there devs ;)

as for the tags:

i really like them and would use as much as i could if it was a bit easier to use them and the players had better support for them,
hence i voted #2

breaking scec compliance is bad, but i think you have a pretty good reason for it and the side effects aren't really that important
+ if you should ever do such a thing, now is the time for it since matroska is still quite young

Atamido
31st December 2003, 07:48
1. Any files that are already made will play fine. The tags do not affect playback.

2. The Matroska Shell Extension will likely automatically convert old tags to new ones, this would be quick as it would only have to rewrite a little data at the end of the file.

3. Attachments can now be tagged with the same system used to tag tracks and chapters.

BlindWanderer
4th January 2004, 09:11
I currently i don't encode anything in matroska so you can ignore what i have to say, (nor have i looked at the tagging system) but...

I remember reading about using the chapter system in matroska audio container. I was wondering about how you would tag a file where the different chapters were different songs by different artists.

Some input plugins for popular media players (like winamp) where it would show each chapter/song in a matroska container as a separate track.

I would love to code something like this my self but i'm not really smart enough to do codec coding.

robUx4
4th January 2004, 12:48
It has nothing to do with codec coding. And yes, you can tag a chapter separately. So each part of a whole file can have its own description. It seems to be supported by the fooobar2000 player already (.mka support).

ChristianHJW
4th January 2004, 16:47
Originally posted by BlindWanderer I currently i don't encode anything in matroska so you can ignore what i have to say, (nor have i looked at the tagging system) but... .. just out of curiosity ( it killed the cat, as you know ;) ) .. what are you using and why ?

I remember reading about using the chapter system in matroska audio container. I was wondering about how you would tag a file where the different chapters were different songs by different artists. ... mmg ( the GUI for mkvmerge ) can convert CUE files from audio CDs into a XML matroska chapter file already, and this can be read into mkvmerge.exe ( the 'Global' tab in mmg ) so that every song gets its own chapter entry.

Some input plugins for popular media players (like winamp) where it would show each chapter/song in a matroska container as a separate track. ... it seems we were doing a lot of effort here already, but in the wrong direction. The matroska splitter has a chapter interface already, but this is not supported by Windows Mediaplayer unfortunately, as we were of the opinion that there is no good chapter interface in DirectShow. Now, due to latest information, there is a nice chapter interface existing on DirectShow, and supported fine by WMP. Lets hope Gabest or Toff find the time to implement it into the splitter, so WMP can display matroska chapters.

I would love to code something like this my self but i'm not really smart enough to do codec coding. .... at least you can code, i cant :o ....

mf
4th January 2004, 22:50
Directshow also has a playlist interface (make a tag in the MKV file: chapterlist behaves as playlist), that works fine with WMP and MPC. The ASX reader uses it.

jjseth
14th January 2004, 15:06
Yes, i use them, but only the very basic ones

haibane
14th January 2004, 19:48
I have only used the language tag for the subtitle files......
I am also planning to use timecode file to do vfr in matroska......
Are these effected?
I really don't mind as long as their playback ability is no effected, and here is a easy way to convert to new tags............

ChristianHJW
15th January 2004, 06:09
Originally posted by haibane I have only used the language tag for the subtitle files......[] .. language is an important track element, and not a tag.
[quote]I am also planning to use timecode file to do vfr in matroska......Are these effected? I really don't mind as long as their playback ability is no effected, and here is a easy way to convert to new tags............ ... dont worry, nothing will change here. Timestamps are really basic stuff in the blocks of a MKV file, tags get atached usually to the end of a file and contain only info on the content, not basic stuff like the things you mentioned ....

Blight
16th January 2004, 04:04
ChristianHJW:
I've recently implemented the APETAG v2 system into ZP, it's a VERY simple interface to support and it's easily extendable. Perhaps MKV should just use that.

http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~pfk/MPP/sv8/apetag.html

Atamido
16th January 2004, 08:02
APEv2 tags cannot be exactly implemented in Matroska as it goes against the basic design. However the new tagging system is very similar in functionality to APEv2. Any program that can parse Matroska and supports APEv2 should be able to write the new Matroska tags. The Matroska tags also offer the ability to have nested tags and to have tags that are specific to tracks and/or chapters and/or attachments.

robUx4
16th January 2004, 10:04
In other words APEv2 is not enough for all the features we want to allow.

KpeX
16th January 2004, 20:29
I like how the new tagging works with the new Foobar plugin, it's great for music. Is anything using the new tagging system yet other than MKVMerge and the Foobar plugin? ( I couldn't find a version of the shell extension later than 2.3)

Blight
19th January 2004, 02:26
Well, it'd be a lot more difficult (and slow) having to parse the entire matroska stream to find the tags, that's the whole point of putting it at the end of the file, very easy to detect

Atamido
19th January 2004, 03:49
In Matroska, the reason for putting it at the end is so that it is easy to edit. At the beginning of most Matroska files there is an index that points to where everything else is. (Its not necessary, but it makes things faster) Because of this, you could put the Tags anywhere and it would take the same amount of time to find them. But, if you edit the Tags and it makes it bigger than the space that you allotted for them in the middle of a file, you have to rewrite a good amount of the file. If they are at the end, then you just keep expanding the size.