On 2012-12-17 12:04, richard lucassen <mailinglists lucassen org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:23:21 +0000 David King <amigadave amigadave com> wrote:>IMHO we need an RFC for tagging. I think that the Vorbis specification for comment fields fits with my position on this topic:Well, you take that particular document as a sort of RFC, but unfortunately it is not an RFC.
It is the specification for Vorbis comments, and the introduction makes it quite clear that the free-form comment fields are not intended to be a comprehensive metadata repository. I agree with that reasoning, and would further clarify my position as being that EasyTAG should follow the specification by default, but allow flexibility so that a user can deviate from it.
I mean we need a real RFC, especially for players. What's the use of following the directions given in the Vorbis specifications if players just display the "title, artist, album"? IMHO it is necessary that tagging programs ***AND*** players comply to an RFC.
You already mentioned that metadata editors and viewers must follow a specification (or RFC if you prefer) in order for the metadata to be useful. My short-term approach is to fix EasyTAG to comply with the existing and appropriate specification, in this case matching the suggested Vorbis comment field names for Vorbis tags.
A possible long-term approach that I would support is the use of XMP (to simplify the reading and writing of metadata) and a set of standardised tags which have a defined mapping to the Dublin Core simple set (to simplify the interpretation of the stored metadata).
There is no use in tagging the "PERFORMER" field if regular players don't display these fields. Suppose you put the composer into the "ARTIST" field. Listeners to classical music will "loose" 1 field on a regular player. Do yo want to search through 900 albums searching for e.g. "Winterreise"? And what if you have more than one "Winterreise" because many performances exist of that particular work by many ARTIST's?
I can quite believe that a music collection with many performances of a single work would be confusing if the "PERFORMER" field was not used (or supported by the player). If a ‘regular player’ does not follow the specification (which is, admittedly, rather basic) then that player has a bug which should be fixed. If the bug is not fixed for whatever reason, you are of course free to use tags and field names which are contrary to the specification.
What's the use of the field "COMPOSER"? Try to tell Apple that the use of the "COMPOSER" field is not used anymore. They use it (I think that's right btw)
Given that iTunes (and the iOS derivatives), to which I presume you are referring when you mention Apple, does not support file formats with Vorbis comments, I suppose that you are referring to ID3v2 (which has a "composer" frame) or some other tagging scheme. If those tagging schemes specify more explicit tags and situations in which those tags should be used then I see no problem in following that guidance.
Changing the functionality of some fields is not a solution I fear, as long as no specific directions exist in this matter :-(
If you would care to look at the bug that I filed, you will notice that I suggested correcting the field label for the comment that is written into the "PERFORMER" field to be ‘Performer’ rather than ‘Orig. Artist’:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=690299
That's the problem we keep running into...
-- http://amigadave.com/
Attachment:
pgpbOLziuP3Ng.pgp
Description: PGP signature