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

[Jonathan Walther]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:23:04PM +1300, John Morton wrote:
>The proposal is still trying to dictate policy that people don't like. I 
>don't like the idea that fields you consider 'depreciated' shouldn't be 
>displayed by players. Arbitarily renaming artist to performer seems to me to 

I don't think you read the proposal you are criticizing.

Let me quote:

    Standard Compliance:
    ====================

    A compliant Ogg player program will intelligently display, or let the
    user specify how to display, all the ALLOWED tags in this document.

Do you see anywhere there it forbids a compliant Ogg player to display
non-standard tags?

>I'm also not keen on _requiring_ certain fields to be singletons, either. 
>Most of the fields mentioned in that list are likely to only have one value 
>because it doesn't make much sense to enter more than one. 

Sure, lets just throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Then we can get
rid of the wash basin too.

This standard isn't supposed to be some touchy-feely substitute for
a daily regimen of handjobs and blowjobs, its supposed to be useful
for 99.9% of the users of ogg, and no worse than what already exists
for the remaining 0.1%.

It would be nice to suggest how rippers, encoders, and players could be
standard compliant while still making users of legacy oggs happy; if you
have such ideas I'll be happy to include them in the proposal as
examples of how things might work.  I've avoided making such suggestions
myself because every peice of software does things slightly differently.
No matter how generic a suggestion I make, there will be some software
that it doesn't make sense for.  Hence the "Compliance" section of the
proposal.

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/20011212/f0b58043/part.pgp