[vorbis] (Classical) Request for Standardization of expanded TAGS

[Karel P Kerezman]

On Thu, 2001-12-06 at 15:53, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> If you don't want to use the new tags, that's fine.  That's why they're
> optional!
> 
> The word (Classical) in the Subject line is a bit misleading, though.
> If anything, tagging popular music is *harder* than tagging most classical
> music, because there's less formal structure to the metadata.  I want
> these new tags for my *popular* music, not for classical!

I was going to stay the hell out of this one, but I'm afraid I have to
concur, hesitantly, with this statement. I'm also a listener of what
could be called "popular music," and have always thought that the lack
of available tags to be a slight inconvenience. "COMMENT" tag(s) are a
nice kludge, but only that. Remixes and demos and live versions clutter
my library, being the collector that I am, and I've never been happy
with stuffing all of that extra data into the song title tag either.

Having said that, my biggest worries with adding new tags at the
nearly-1.0 stage are compatibility with existing player code and
existing files, and how such a project as "tagspace enhancement" might
distract the developers at a key point in the development cycle. Or, put
another way, even if the developers want to do this, can they spare the
time right now to do it right?

(Tagspace enhancement. Gee, I'm clever with words, ain't I?)


-- 
Karel P Kerezman, IS Admin Entercom Portland

Of course the meek will inherit the earth!  Did you think they were
going to take it by force?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: part
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 233 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20011206/da47b429/part.pgp