[vorbis] Tag Proposal -> Tag Standard

[David K. Gasaway]

Alright.  So, the tag proposal that has been labored over for some 
months has now been reclassified a bit.  There new URL is now here: 

http://reactor-core.org/ogg-tag-recommendations.html 

And is prefaced by the following statement: 

"The following recommendations were developed by a community of 
Ogg/Vorbis users for their own use." 

I believe the implication is that this document is not, and will not, 
be endorsed by xiph or the vorbis team.  This disturbs me a bit, and 
think there should be some discussion on the matter.  Here are some 
points which I feel are pertinent. 

1) The v-comment.html document (the "Standard") on xiph.org is a 
suitably weak standard.  It was entirely appropriate for the time at 
which it was published.  As I see it, the intent was to develop 
something which at the outset was clearly superior to id3.  This does 
not preclude development of a more concrete standard.  In other words, 
the plan was to leave the Standard was sparse only until a more 
complete standard could be devised and reviewed over time, concurrently 
with the development of ogg vorbis.  The Standard was simply a 
framework on which to build something better. 

2) As far as traffic to this list, it seems very little has been 
decided about a new meta-data format which would supplant comment tags. 
 Let's see - it won't be in XML; that's about all I can recall from the 
discussion.  In other words, it hasn't come along very far. 

3) The inadequacy of the id3 system is well-known.  In particular, 
classical music is not given fair treatment.  And so, we have id3v2, a 
conflicting and/or supplemental standard.  While id3v1 support is 
widespread, id3v2 support is still spotty.  Some applications which 
*can* use id3v2 prefer id3v1 when given both! *cough*winamp*cough*  
It's a mess. 

4) The need for a concrete standard is very real.  The average user 
needs to be given clear direction.  Hard-core ogg vorbis users have 
been around; they've tried id3, hated it, and have had excellent ideas 
about a superior standard.  I think that's evidenced by the lively 
discussions that have deluged the list from time to time. 

The average GUI, point-and-click user, on the other hand, doesn't have 
the will or inclination to personally develop a tag standard.  It's 
clear that the questions are not always obvious and the answers are 
never clear cut - check out the archives, man!  The user will want 
boxes to fill in and a button labelled "Save". 

5) In the end, without a definitive standard, ogg tags will likely be 
left in the hands of GUI developers.  Why is this so bad?  Well, 
imagine MusicMatch decides to implement a certain set of tags, and 
lacking any good external documentation to reference, they develop 
there own "Ogg Standard" which is published to their web site.  
Immediately they become a large, influential force in the Ogg Vorbis 
community.  Again, lacking good documentation to reference, P2P 
developers latch on to MusicMatch's standard as *the* way to tag oggs.  
:P 

6) Developers, being the sticklers that they are, will probably not be 
comfortable with the Standard.  Discerning developers, anyway, who 
recognize the short-comings of the id3 system.  They will want 
something concrete on which to build code.  Not an obscure, idealistic 
dream. :)

7) The existing Standard, even to the hard-core user, is only useful as 
a framework developing a personal standard.  Those who will make oggs 
and keep them for themselves might be perfectly satisfied by this 
situation.  But it does nothing to build and support an Ogg Vorbis 
community. 

8) I, as a user, am not interested in an audio format that does not 
provide a reasonably robust system for identifying music.  I have 
avoided encoding *any classical music at all* to the MP3 format.  
Instead, I have been holding for Ogg Vorbis.  I'm sure there are many 
others that feel the same. 

9) Any concerns about the Proposal as a whole should have have been 
brought forward *long* ago.  Long before so many people have 
contributed so much time to develop the Proposal with the understanding 
that it would eventually become the "New Standard".  This work has been 
conducted in public on the vorbis list, and always with the overriding 
goal of developing something which benefits the Ogg Vorbis community as 
a whole. 

10) Overall, I feel the Proposal is nothing but beneficial to users, 
developers, xiph, the entire Ogg Vorbis community, the Open Source 
community, humanity, etc.  I haven't seen any concrete contrary 
arguments.  In all honesty, I'd love to see them.  I'm always up for a 
little debate. ;) 

Finally, I need to clarify that this is *not* a rant against Jonathan 
Walther.  As I understand the situation, the changes were made in 
response to pressure from others within the community.  I sincerely 
hope these individuals will engage in this discussion, as well. 


--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- XNS  : =David K Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave at gasaway.org
-:-:- Web  : dave.gasaway.org

<p>--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.