[ogg-dev] Feedback on XML metadata namespace

[Ralph Giles]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:26:14PM +0200, Daniel Aleksandersen wrote:

> > http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/VorbisComment
> 
> I updated the page with constructive proposals and structure.

I don't see any proposals beyond the linked pages?

> See the new RIGHTS field name; dropping LICENSE and COPYRIGHT) for instance.

I think we should add some clarification to some of the existing fields. 
This is all supposedly human readable, but it makes sense for some 
fields or combinations of fields to be machinable as well. For example, 
we've been telling people for years to use iso date format in the DATE 
tag. Likewise, LICENSE should contain a url which uniquely identifies 
the license if one is available a la Creative Commons.

The problem I've seen with having both COPYRIGHT and LICENSE is that 
some people put the license in the COPYRIGHT, so readers should 
interpret a license URL in that tag if none is found under LICENSE.

> By the way, here is a proposal I did not add on the page. I would like to 
> discuss it here first. What's up with the naming for these formats 
> anyways!? Vorbis is a codec. FLAC is a codec. Both used Vorbis comments.

It's just as you've described. The specs all say "Vorbis comments" 
because they've borrowed the metadata structure from the Vorbis spec.
That's fine as far as the spec goes. Maybe the problem is that we've
been pointing people at the Vorbis spec for what tags to use, at that 
particular page has the wrong title?

 -r