[vorbis] Tag Proposal -> Tag Standard

[David Gasaway]

Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> No.  The Vorbis comments have one goal: provide human-readable comments.
> Quoting from the standard:

I said the standard should not be taken as the last word.  It seems to 
disagree, but you said nothing to dissuade me.

> std> The comment field is meant to be used much like someone jotting a
> std> quick note on the bottom of a CDR.
> 
> The standard fullfills that goal perfectly.

The Proposal does not fulfill the goal?

> Then maybe you should focus on working on it?

Maybe.  Instead, I chose to help Jonathan.  The Proposal, from the first 
version, was already relatively mature, and so that seemed the faster 
track to developing a good, working standard.  I'm somewhat better at 
taking what is available and helping refine it.  So I've waited for that 
to happen.

The more subtle point I was trying to make: Vorbis 1.0 will be out 
relatively soon, and I don't think there's time to develop a good 
metadata standard before then.

> How is this relevant to us?

We don't want to end up with the same situation, obviously.

> Let them type anything they want -- because they want just that.

No, the average user doesn't want to type anything they want.

> Any program that doesn't show *all* tags is not compliant.

Here, I'm talking about encoders/taggers that *add* tags, not players 
that *display* tags.  A tagger doesn't not have to allow arbitrary tag 
entry to be compliant.

> If a program
> restricts the user in what tags he can input, users will not like it.

Not true.  Plenty of people actually *like* ID3.

> Erm, are you bashing the proposal now, or the standard?

Not bashing, just jabbing a little; don't take that too seriously. :)

>>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.
> 
> Please explain.

The current Standard is not adequate for my needs.  Others feel the 
same.  So, I am forced to develop a more extensive personal standard 
that meets those needs.  If many other people do the same, we end up 
with a jumbled, disjointed community.  Various "standards" will build up 
where people have come together to fix various inadequacies of the 
Standard and any new personal standards that show up.

It is better, IMO, to develop something with the weight of an official 
standard that helps bring together developers and users the world over.

<p>> If, on the other hand, you want to search for a certain file, you should
> use some library program.  A database like that restricts the user in
> what data (what tags) it can hold, but for a good reason: to make precise
> searches possible.  The comment field does not need any restrictions
> like that.

I'd hardly call the Proposal restrictive.  Is there something more you 
feel it needs?

>>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.

Sorry, that was a terribly defensive statement on my part.

> a) We didn't invite any of that discussion

Who's we, and to which discussion are you referring?

> b) Concerns _have_ been brought forward, they just have been ignored.
> 
> http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis/200112/0083.html (me)

Yes, I remember that one.  It didn't come across as clearly against the 
Proposal.  I'm really not sure how to read it.  Care to expand this?

> http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis/200112/0401.html (Rillian)

Not ignored; the discussion continued further.

> http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis/200112/0162.html (Monty)

Very good link; I see the relevant statements here.  I still feel the 
Proposal is in line with Monty's general wishes.  We really don't know 
just how Monty feels about the current Proposal, as he hasn't commented 
lately.  Word is, he will evaluate it soon; I'm looking forward to his 
input.

> http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis/200112/0138.html (Monty)

This one is just about subtagging.  There current Proposal does not have 
subtagging, so this isn't relevant.

> I feel it harms users and developers.  Simpler and more general is
> easier and more powerful.  Standardizing "ARTIST", "TRACKNUMBER" etc.
> is good for easy adoption of Vorbis in older software that is id3 or
> CDDB-centric.  There is no need to standardize any other tag.

Average users are not necessarily interested in power or flexibility. 
They're often more interested in simplicity and productivity.  This 
drives the work of developers - commercial developers, that is, open 
source developers are different beasts.  ;)

You admit that standardizing some tags is "good for easy adoption of 
Vorbis."  This is exactly the point.  Unfortunately, the tags in the 
Standard are not adequate, especially when considering classical music. 
    Thus, the current Proposal.  Are you sure we're not really agreeing, 
here?

> Segher

Thanks for your input, Segher!  Hope I didn't offend in any way.

<p>
-- 
-:-:- 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.