[vorbis] TAG-mess

[Jonathan Walther]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 04:58:43AM +0100, Moritz Grimm wrote:
>Sorry, it's simply impossible for me to read the whole thread.

If you can't read the whole thread because there are too many posts,
what makes you think you have something unique and insightful to add to
the discussion?  You don't even know what was said or what we are
talking about.

If you don't want to read the thread because its already too long, think
how much harder you are making it for everyone else who is reading the
thread when you add your own uninformed posts to it.

>DESCRIPTION tags for example. What I am saying is that your standard
>splits the ARTIST tag into categories that, when done right, should all
>be used (more or less). ARTIST might be diffuse, but it's all-inclusive
>and concise (if that's the right word). Lots of tags == confusing, few
>expressive tags == simple and effective.

I disagree.  I feel you have it exactly the opposite way around.  A few
simple tags are better than one huge hard to parse tag.

>You're demanding too much from the average user.

Since I'm demanding nothing from the average user, I take it that
nothing is too much?  What am I supposed to do, personally include a
free lollypop with every ogg they download that happens to be
standards-compliant?

>hurry, doesn't care and doesn't want to know. The average user never
>reads manuals and how-tos. Have a look at Microsoft ... they treat their
>users like total dumbasses and they make several fortunes from it.

Such average users will continue to use MP3 and WinMedia quite happily
until Ogg become an overwhelming advantage for them.  In the meantime,
if the vanguard does things properly, by the time the majority turns to
Ogg, there will be sufficient body of good examples that, tagging by
examples, the average users will have no hesitation in getting it close
to right.

>Exact, and that's why I think that a "too intelligent" standard is too
>much. People won't use it and stick to the stupid ID3 scheme. I can only
>repeat myself, your intentions are great, but it's too complicated!

Don't underestimate people.  If you want your hands tied behind your
back, go back to MP3.

>Segher made some nice meta-data categories. In my opinion, standard tags
>should only deal with category 1. Category 2 is covered by custom tags,
>that could be used in customized databases and indices. Category 3 is
>definitely the XML thing. The XML meta-data allows to cascade meta-data,
>e.g. something like this: (d'oh, I hope this will be valid XML now ...

Thats the only sane thing I've heard you say.  Of course, you are going
to disagree on what should be "standard tags".

>Grmpf. No! All I'm saying all the time is "keep it simple!". A too
>comprehensive standard will make the average user feel stupid and he
>won't use it!

Since the average user won't see or know about the tags (the information
will show up properly formatted in the players), your straw man pretty
much reduces to cheap chaff in the wind.

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/20011207/abbb6864/part.pgp