[vorbis] TAG-mess

[Jonathan Walther]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 05:40:24AM +0100, Moritz Grimm wrote:
>- OGG tags shall be human readable, writeable (!), descriptive and
>*small*. They're the first thing you get in a stream or an .OGG file,
>e.g. the tags let you decide whether you want to download the whole file
>or not. "It is meant for short, text comments, not arbitrary metadata;
>arbitrary metadata belongs in a metadata stream (usually an XML stream
>type)." -- http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/doc/v-comment.html

I'm not the only one saying no to using XML for this.  In his only post
to this thread 2 months ago, Monty flatly said `no way' to the idea of
using XML metadata for the sort of simple things covered by this
tagging standard.  I get the feeling that there is hammer-and-nail
syndrome here, with all you guys piping up that we should "use XML!".

>- Every average user would need software support to handle all the tags
>and to prevent wrong tagging. I, for example, tag all my OGGs on-the-fly
>with one big oggenc command line. This would become impossible with this
>huge, complex load of standard tags.

Standardize first, then the tools will follow.  Unless a standard
exists, obviously none of the tools will support it.

><highly_subjective>
>Your theoretical ogg123 output is really scary, too. I mean, in the end
>it's about music, right? I don't listen to music with my eyes.
></highly_subjective>

When someone sends you a file with a gibbled filename, how do you find
out what the heck it is?  What if you really liked it and wanted to run
out and buy 10 copies of it on CD for your friends you liked it so much?
The output should give you enough information that you can do that.

Jonathan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: part
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 797 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20011206/4dc6a876/part.pgp