[vorbis] Tag Proposal -> Tag Standard

[David Gasaway]

Segher Boessenkool wrote:

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

The rationale is not clear from the document.  I speculated the full 
intent; you still haven't convinced me otherwise.

> Less perfectly, namely more restrictive.

More standard.  If that means more restrictive, then okay.  I still 
don't see what's wrong with that.

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

Hmm...I don't get it.  Examples?

>>Not true.  Plenty of people actually *like* ID3.
> See previous.

Don't see how the previous comment applies to people that like ID3.

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

My argument was centered around building a community.  The value of 
building a community is arguable, I agree.  In my eyes, adoption of Ogg 
Vorbis as a replacement for MP3 is crucial at this point.  Diversity 
doesn't necessarily help that goal.  The Proposal doesn't necessarily 
harm diversity, either.  But what kinds of diversity are important? 
There's always a compromise...

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

Again, that's fine for personal use.  I'm talking about building a 
community.  I cannot necessarily understand what someone else has put 
into tags.  It's bad enough with "ARTIST" (which I've come to accept). 
If someone uses "MUSIC_DUDE", then I've really got a problem.

>>I'd hardly call the Proposal restrictive.  Is there something more you
>>feel it needs?
> 
> Not more, but less.

That's not what I had in mind.  What data would you like to store in 
tags that the Proposal does not accomodate.  Otherwise, please explain 
how the Proposal is too restrictive for your tastes.  If it gives you 
everything you need, how can you say it's too restrictive?

<p>>>>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.

Vorbis list users *did* invite this discussion.  Where do you think it 
came from?!?

> 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.

The Proposal to a tee.  It makes the data more human-redable.  Please 
explain how it does not.

>>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.

That's a fallacy.  ID3 is a model example of simplicity.  It is not 
flexible or powerful.  The Standard is a model example of flexibility. 
   As I said, each user would need to develop a personal standard; 
hardly productive.

>>You admit that standardizing some tags is "good for easy adoption of
>>Vorbis."
> 
> Only for the id3/cddb tags.

Classical music be damned?  That's hardly fair.

>> Are you sure we're not really agreeing,
>> here?
> I'm sure.

Well, gosh darn it!  ;)


-- 
-:-:- 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.