[vorbis] Vorbis Comment question

[Segher Boessenkool]

John Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 03:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

>>The only thing computer programs are allowed to do with tags are
>>displaying the tags to users, and letting users edit the tags.
> 
> Computer programs _ought_ to allow users to fill tags in with arbitary 
> strings, and _ought_ to display those arbitary strings as is, but I wouldn't 
> be too upset if some editor helped me enter the DATE tag as a proper date in 
> the format of my prefered locale, then saved it as an ISO formated date, so 
> that numerical sorts are isomorphous to chronological sorting on that field, 
> and some other tag displayer could display the date in my locale format 
> again. 

A program that sorts streams on tag values is pretty useless --
TAGS ARE NOT GENERIC METADATA.  Sorry for shouting.

Programs that mangle tag values are retarded.

> And I quite like the way that vorbisgain calculates and stored the replaygain 
> values for tracks and albums, and various players can put those numbers to 
> use, automatically.

Info like the replaygain values belong with user preferences in
a player program, not with the stream.

>>I actually think all of this tag business has been a mistake --
>>comments should be truly free-form.
> 
> I disagree - I like being able to see my pick of the artist, title, track 
> number and album in my media player. I think the tag=value model is just the 
> right level of machine-readable formalization for the task. 

All player programs I use store data like that in a separate
database, not in the streams.  If only, it is a few million
times faster.  More importantly, it is where the data belongs.

> I think the tag debate is one of those eternally recuring threads for these 
> reasons:
> 
>  - C and C++ people want the metadata to be more 'machine readable' because
>  string manipulation requires so much more heavy lifting, and is so fraught
>  with peril in those languages.

There _is_ no string manipulation!  Just input and output.

>  - People want more formalization because in software, that's often a good 
>  thing, but they forget that this sort of data modeling exercise is
>  especially slippery because it's all about people, not software.

It already _is_ formalized.  If people want to change the
spec so they can use it for a totally different goal (general
metadata), they are better advised to create or select such
a standard, separate from Vorbis tags.  And in fact, they
repeatedly _are_ advised to do so.

>  - People are just plain lazy. They want Xiph to provide the gravatis to
>  their pet standard so that some silent, but presumably legion, audience of  
> tag editor and player plugin authors will go off and code it for them. 

They either should code it themselves and donate it to Xiph,
or fund Xiph to create it, or just wait until it gets done.

> I think the last time this thread roared across the list I pointed out that 
> if the people campaigning for Xiph acceptance of some classical music 
> oriented tag set had, instead, spent the time writing a good tag editor that 
> enforced their requirements, and perhaps a patched p2p client that did so as 
> well, they'd be on their way to a de facto standard already. 

No "standard" anyone at Xiph would ever support, though
(unless I'm severely mistaken).

> And it hasn't happened. Oh, well.

So *make* it happen, if you care so much.  And stop complaining.

<p><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.