[vorbis] TAG Standard - ENSEMBLE/PERFORMER tags

[Craig Dickson]

Jonathan Walther wrote:

> What you want to do is what the metadata stream is for.  Please
> leave the tags alone and start the discussion rolling about the
> metadata stream.

I can't believe I agree with Jonathan about a tagging issue. Someone
slap me. :-)

> The current mandate of the tagging standard is: identify what you are
> listening to so you know what it is, and so you can go out and buy it.

Your standard goes _way_ beyond that. What did you think of the much
briefer list of tags that I presented earlier today? Can you think of an
example where you would not be able to identify the CD that the
recording came from based on my list?

> The tagging standard doesn't forbid any extra tags.  I wouldn't even
> object to a tagging standard doing what you suggest, but the problem is
> that there is no end to the number of tags that would have to be
> "standardized".  You have to draw the line somewhere to stop the
> standard from mushrooming in complexity.  As it stands now, I had a lot
> of people complaining it was "too bloated", but they have been silent
> for a while.

Earth to Jonathan: the old thread died. The subject has lain fallow for
a few weeks now. This does NOT, repeat NOT mean that everyone's
objections have been satisfied, and/or that your proposal now has a
"mandate".

> Tell you what.  The current standard I've been working on has the
> mandate already mentioned.  If you make a up a list of tags that should
> be added to expand the standard to fill YOUR needs, I'm willing to add
> it as "Appendix A".  Deal?  Come up with the document, and I'll add it.
> At the beginning of Appendix A it will be made clear that supporting it
> is only required if one wants to support your much expanded mandate.

Counter-proposal. Let's have a new version of the "standard" that limits
the "recommended standard" tags to my list of this morning. Everything
else you want can be "Appendix A". Glenn's can be "Appendix B". Agree to
this and I'll even do the editing for you.

> Multi-language support?  Everyone should use ASCII.  All those Asian
> encodings?  When I was in Korea I played with them.  Big5, etc.  In the
> famous words of Marie Antoinette: let them use ASCII.  Instead of using
> a 64 bit glyph to represent a Chinese ideogram, use 3-4 bytes to spell
> out the word in the romanized version.  Ditto Korean.  Let the display
> software turn the word-strings into indexes into a table of appropriate
> glyphs.

Bloody furriners. Why don't they all speak English like normal people? :-)

It wouldn't be that hard to have multiple tag blocks, with each block
having a language/nation header. But it seems quite mad to me, both
because of size concerns (especially in conjunction with all the extra
tags you and Glenn want) and because it's silly to think that more than
a tiny fraction of users will ever enter all of this data once, much
less again in another language.

Craig

--- >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.