@samsethi @Castopod Sounds like a plan! I'll add it to my list. :D

@samsethi Looking at the PSP spec, it shows txt as "optional". To get certified, does one have to support the mandatory, recommended, _and_ optional tags? The website and github is not super clear on that...

@dwev you are right just checked in the original spec it was optional. TXT with verification is going to be the main use case. If you can add it then we are being consistent. That spec was written 8 months ago before I was involved. I have asked the authors of the spec to clarify.

@samsethi I just submitted a PR for this, so it should be in the next release. :)

The best option would probably to replace it with the @podlove player.

@benjaminbellamy @podlove Can you use castopod with the podlove web player?

@stepfister @podlove There is some heavy code refactoring to do first, but yes.

@benjaminbellamy @podlove I just want to install the software and simply use it. So I have to stick with wordpress and podlove. I don't want to miss the chaptermarks in the web player on my podcast site. I rather would use castopod but not without chaptermarks in the web player.

@benjaminbellamy @stepfister if you have questions let us know.

@podlove @benjaminbellamy Can you use castopod with the webplayer from podlove?

@stepfister @podlove There is some heavy code refactoring to do first, but yes.

@benjaminbellamy Nevermind the last question was for podlove directly. They asked for it.

@stepfister Actually they might help a lot. But we'd still have to do our code refactor before that.

@benjaminbellamy You are working on this feature?

@stepfister Not yet but that's on our roadmap.

@benjaminbellamy @podlove does the Podlove player support Podcasting 2.0 chapters?

@dwev @podlove I think it does not. Hence some code refactoring to do.

@benjaminbellamy @podlove On the podlove player side, or for Castopod to include another namespace in the rss?

@dwev @podlove Castopod has been following the Podcasting 2.0 speca since the very beginning.
We have to translate some files before sending them to the Podlove player.

@benjaminbellamy @podlove yes, Castopod’s support of PC2.0 is what attracted me to add some more PC2.0 tags to the code base. Just thinking that instead of adding another namespace (psc) for podlove chapters, would it be better to find a player that already supports PC2.0 chapters? (Unless the podlove player already supports PC2.0 chapters?)

@benjaminbellamy @dwev The Podlove Web Player doesn’t parse the RSS Feed it has it’s own data representation of chapters https://docs.podlove.org/podlove-web-player/v5/configuration#chapters

@benjaminbellamy oh, that looks like it’s _almost_ the same as PC2.0 chapters , just with different node names (start for startTime, href for url, image for img) and the times are not in seconds. It’s a shame it can’t use the same file out of the box, but I guess that’s what Open Source is for! :) @podlove would you accept a PR that added support for the PC2.0 chapter format?

@dwev @benjaminbellamy Btw. we introduced the Podlove Simple Chapters 12 years ago, it is supported by a lot of systems already so one could argue why not supporting this format instead? https://podlove.org/simple-chapters/ (we also took part in the discussions about the PC2.0 Chapters Spec).

@podlove @benjaminbellamy Rather than support multiple namespaces and standards, I feel it’s better to focus on one to reduce confusion for publishers. From my perspective, there is significant growing traction in support for the rich podcast namespace, which includes a chapters feature with additional functionality over the psc version.

@dwev @benjaminbellamy sure, if the existing format still works go for it :) I would like to reiterate that the player itself is agnostic to the implementation system. That is the only way to enable all of the different platforms to use it.