# Looking for opinions regarding track numbering **URL:** \ **Category:** Support\ **Created:** [March 7, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/looking-for-opinions-regarding-track-numbering/14523 "2013-03-07T20:28:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![deckard](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/bbce88/32.png) [@deckard](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/deckard)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/looking-for-opinions-regarding-track-numbering/14523/1 "2013-03-07T20:28:13Z")
With the exception of some Apple formats, which do not allow leading zeros, all my tags have leading zeros for tracks 1-9 (01-09). However, regardless of the file type, my file names always have leading zeros, so whatever OS/Player or other software sees them in the correct order. I have some compilations that consist of multiple discs, and I typically remove the disc numbers and make them one giant album, as many of the online databases (Amazon, Discogs, etc.) do this. Because of this, I have a few compilations that contain over 100+ tracks. So, my question is, how would you format the track numbers for albums that have more than 100 tracks? Would you leave tracks 1-99 as "01-99", or would you add an extra 0, making it "001-099"? ---
**Author:** ![JJ\_Johnson](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/jj_johnson/32/67_2.png) [@JJ\_Johnson](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/JJ_Johnson)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 8:41pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/looking-for-opinions-regarding-track-numbering/14523/2 "2013-03-07T20:41:02Z")
In the file names I would pad the track number to three digits. However, in the track number fields, I've _never_ found a need for leading zeros. Every device and every application that I've ever used interprets this field as numeric, so there's been no need. ---
**Author:** ![LyricsLover](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/c6cbf5/32.png) [@LyricsLover](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/LyricsLover)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/looking-for-opinions-regarding-track-numbering/14523/3 "2013-03-07T20:47:58Z")
The id3 specification says about TRCK: > [@](#): > > TRCK > > ``` > The 'Track number/Position in set' frame is a numeric string containing the order number of the audio-file on its original recording. This may be extended with a "/" character and a numeric string containing the total numer of tracks/elements on the original recording. E.g. "4/9". > > ``` Never heard about a 'numeric string'. It is numeric OR a string. But I think, they mean "a number followed by a slash followed by a number as one string". I vote for "001/999". ---
**Author:** ![JJ\_Johnson](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/jj_johnson/32/67_2.png) [@JJ\_Johnson](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/JJ_Johnson)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/looking-for-opinions-regarding-track-numbering/14523/4 "2013-03-07T20:53:12Z")
> [@LyricsLover](#): > > The id3 specification says about TRCK:Never heard about a 'numeric string'. It is numeric OR a string. But I think, they mean "a number followed by a slash followed by a number as one string". That would have to be the ID3v2 spec, because the track number in ID3v1.1 is one byte and can only be interpreted as an unsigned integer from 0 to 255. ---
**Author:** ![LyricsLover](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/c6cbf5/32.png) [@LyricsLover](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/LyricsLover)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/looking-for-opinions-regarding-track-numbering/14523/5 "2013-03-07T21:21:45Z")
You are right, JJ Johnson. I forgot the url: [http://id3.org/id3v2.3.0](http://id3.org/id3v2.3.0) (search for TRCK in the text, the search function on the page doesn't seem to work). ---
**Author:** ![ohrenkino](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/ohrenkino/32/4843_2.png) [@ohrenkino](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/ohrenkino)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 6:11am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/looking-for-opinions-regarding-track-numbering/14523/6 "2013-03-08T06:11:01Z")
> [@LyricsLover](#): > > ...Never heard about a 'numeric string'.... I would interpret this in the following way: the field requires a number (= numeric) and not other letters (so it is not "alphanumeric") except the slash to separate the totaltracks number. The contents of the field is then supposed to be treated like a number - you can see that in MP3tag in the column definition as you have to tick "numeric" to get proper results for sorting. And the $num() function (apparently) also only looks at the first part up to the slash ---
**Author:** ![system](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/c/ce7035d426cb755a7916793326d23b465222a407.png) [@system](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2026, 12:24pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/looking-for-opinions-regarding-track-numbering/14523/7 "2026-02-09T12:24:23Z")
Closed on February 9, 2026, 12:24pm UTC