[vorbis] Tag changes

[Jonathan Walther]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:43:24AM -0500, Ben Pearre wrote:
>Trying to label Don Giovanni...  something like 72 parts.  May I
>re-open the discussion of part names vs. numbers?  (a suggestion
>follows the quote)

I have a question.  What software mechanism do you have in mind to take
PARTNUMBERS and sort them for you?  Could the same mechanism not be used
for cases where you put the part number into the PARTNAME tag?  I always
had the impression that the mandate of these tags was to be human
readable, and not meant for machines to use.  I believe thats what Monty
has stated on the list.

In the case of a single track that contains several parts, wouldn't a
PARTNUMBER tag add complexity to supporting software?  The PARTNAME tag
already adds some complexity by the fact it can occur more than once for
a given track.

There are quite a few classical music works where there is only the
name, and no part number.  And there are quite a few classical CD's that
skip "parts" of a work, without any indication on the cover that is what
they have done.  Then there are works by Philip Glass which may have
different part numbers for the same part each time you play it.

I personally don't see a need to separate the partnumber tag from the
partname tag, but if more people speak up in support of it, saying why
it is better to have it than to not have it, I'm ok with it.  I think
the nature of "partnumber tag is better" should address the issue of
what software will be doing the sorting in what context, and how this
is easier for the software than sorting the partname tag instead.

Is there a reason to switch from TITLE to TRACKTITLE?

Cheers!

Jonathan

>On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 04:46:48PM -0800, David Gasaway wrote:
>> Ben Pearre wrote:
>> 
>> >My request is simply to have one field for movement number, and
>> >another for movement name (you'd want to order the tracks by number,
>> >but not by name), and forcing the number and name to be in the same
>> >place seems contrived.
>> 
>> The order can be maintained with the track number.  But...
>> 
>> >FILENAME="$composer - ($opus.$part) $title - $tracktitle ($conductor).ogg"
>> 
>> Track numbers wouldn't look appropriate where you put $part.
>> 
>> I still don't know where you were going with TRACKTITLE, but something 
>> like PARTNUMBER seems appropriate.  ;)
>
>You're right, it shouldn't be TRACK*, but PART*.
>
>Would it be possible to specify PART as the name of the part and
>PARTNUMBER as its sequence number, or some such?  Ideally, so as to
>make the tags maximally self-documenting, I'd go with PARTNAME and
>PARTNUMBER.  Could PART be a deprecated synonym for one or the other?
>
>Cheers!
>-Ben
>
>-- 
>bwpearre at alumni.princeton.edu                http://hebb.mit.edu/~ben

<p><p>
-- 
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2


-------------- 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/20020405/11405533/part.pgp