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

[Jonathan Walther]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:59:19PM +1100, Nemo - earth native wrote:
>No, you store *a* GENRE tag. there is not guarantee that I've seen
>that this will be the *freedb* genre. more likely, it'll be hte id3
>GENRE. or, as you so distinctly point out, there can be multiple
>GENRE tags. Which one is the freedb genre?  :P

Thats not my province.  I wouldn't use the GENRE tag to locate things
inside of freedb.  I'd use it for my own convenience, so I'll use
whatever categories I thing accurately describe the tracks genre.

>> What collaboration is needed?  We are pretty close to having what we
>
>Oh, I'm so sorry. Collaboration isn't needed? I was obviously mistaken

Big difference between "What collaboration is needed?" and
"Collaboration isn't needed!"

>in my idea that another group who have the same goal (a standard/pseudo-
>standard for music metadata) might have something to contribute. I must

You are confused.  The fault may be mine, although I've stated this
several times today.  I'll repeat this slowly.

The goal of the standard is not for "all music metadata".  It is for
such small metadata as most people see fit to include in their ogg
files, especially for the purpose of locating the source of the track
*definitively* enough that I can rush out and buy it in my local music
shop without any doubt that I am buying the right CD.

Things like lyrics, liner notes, who was the assistant production
engineer, are not covered by this standard.  You can put them in your
fancy XML metadata if you want to.  They aren't the type of things the
tags were meant for, nor will they be part of that standard for tags
unless an overwhelming number of people write in and convince Monty that
he was wrong and they are right.

>also have been incorrect in my idea that two groups sharing the same
>standard would have more influence than two groups competing.

I don't see any competition.  Instead of accusing me of balkanistic
attitudes, we would all be better off if you described your proposed
collaboration, and explained what we have in common.

>> need for the Ogg format.  However, if the MMI has their own "unique CD
>> identifier", what tag should we use for it?  I await your suggestions.
>
>cdindex. Refer to cdindex.org. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. 

Whatever.  I have no objection to a CDINDEX tag being part of the
standard.  I'm waiting for someone to second it.

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/20011206/714d968a/part-0001.pgp