[ogg-dev] Feedback on XML metadata namespace

[Daniel Aleksandersen]

On 2007-09-12, Ralph wrote:
> 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?

I updated the page!! Wrote about fifty lines! I *know* I saved because I was 
discussing this with a friend over IM, showing him the link to the page. My 
edit is not in the page's history either.

Have anyone restored from a backup or something? :-S

I will just have to write the page AGAIN. (Feeling no love for MediaWiki 
right now.)

> > 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.

See the wiki page in hald an hour.

> > 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?

Everyone calls it Vorbis comment (some insist on vorbiscomment).

Maybe separating the implementation specs and the field name specs would 
solve the naming issue? Leaving the Vorbis comment title, but referring to 
Xiph's ‘Media Description Field Name Set recommendation‘ instead. 
Separating the specs could also lead to adoption of the field name set by 
other metaformats such as ID3.
-- 
Daniel Aleksandersen