[vorbis] Tag Proposal -> Tag Standard

[Segher Boessenkool]

David Gasaway wrote:
> 
> 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.

Please don't try to change the rationale of the standard;  all else
is probably open for discussion, if backward compatible.

> > 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?

Less perfectly, namely more restrictive.

> > Let them type anything they want -- because they want just that.
> 
> No, the average user doesn't want to type anything they want.

Well, most mp3's you can download have the id3 tags misused for
other data than it's intended for.

> > 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.

See previous.

> >>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.

Why is this a bad thing?  Diversity is _good_, imho.

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

There's no need to standardize tags;  people will understand what they say
_anyway_.

> > 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?

Not more, but less.

> > a) We didn't invite any of that discussion
> 
> Who's we, and to which discussion are you referring?

The vorbis@ list users;  all of this never-ending discussion.

> > 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?

Three types of data:

1) actual metadata.
2) player database.
3) human-readable stuff.

The Vorbis tags are 3), and can provide some of 2) for backward compatibility
(i.e., id3/cddb crap) for easy adoption of Vorbis in existing players.

It is a mistake to use 3) for 2) -- 2) is restrictive, and different
players have different needs.

It is a mistake to use 3) for 1) -- this is the core problem of
full metadata, after all.

> > 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.  ;)

Simplicity == flexibility == power == productivity.

> You admit that standardizing some tags is "good for easy adoption of
> Vorbis."

Only for the id3/cddb tags.

> 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?

I'm sure.

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

You didn't.

<p>Cheers,

<p>Segher

<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.