[Matroska-devel] Re: Tag names
paul at msn.com
Tue Mar 23 21:41:15 CET 2004
I forgot to reply to this message...
"Age Bosma" wrote...
> Too bad :-(
> In that cse I would prefer BEATSPM to stay consistent with the FRAMESPS
> and BITSPS.
Changed to BEATSPM.
> INVOLVED_PERSON would be a good place to store it but that name isn't
> very descriptive in this case. We could just change that on to FEATURING
> but I don't know if it would couse problems in other cases.
I think the key here would be to find out what everyone is using.
> You got a point, my Enlish isn't perfect but wouldn't DESIGNATED_PRODUCT
> be even better? If no, INTENDED_PRODUCT is just fine.
Changed to INTENDED_PRODUCT.
> The reason I mentioned it was because it doesn't happen a lot that only
> one instrument is used in a song. Therefor it should be made clear it's
> possible (by an example again as well) to use the field multiple time if
> that's the case in the first place.
Hopefully having several examples to cover 99% of cases should make this clear.
> >>- DATE_RELEASE_ORIGINAL -> DATE_ORIGINAL_RELEASE
> > Is that really better with DATE_RELEASE just above it? To my eyes it looks
> > better this way, but I am not sure. I asked in IRC and one person responded
> > that they prefer DRO. "don't you like french word order?"
> I prefer sticking to the main sequence in which the word ORIGINAL_ is
> used in the other fields. In this case you (probably) want to keep DATE_
> in front otherwise I would have changed it to ORIGINAL_RELEASE_DATE.
> And no, I don't like french word order (no offence intended). ;-)
I don't have time to think this one over, but you may be right. I'll get to it
> It's not the same as the Vorbis PERFORMER tag as you look at the
> descriptions closely, this field should be placed with CONDUCTOR like in
> my reference. Also for ID3 and APE ARTIST are the only fields that come
> close enough to the LEAD_PERFORMER Matroska field.
> From a e.g. a jazz point of view you may speak about LEAD_PERFORMER
> together with BAND but everyone will know what you mean if you use
> ARTIST and BAND in this case as well. This makes it possible to use the
> ARTIST field for e.g. just "Dire Straits" or "Slipknot" as well and
> therefor being fully compatible with the other tag types. Using
> LEAD_PERFORMER in a "Dire Straits" or "Slipknot" context makes much less
I want to know what is used in fb2k before deciding this one. The use of
different terms that overlap a lot has made this a confusing point.
> It's still basicly the same imo. Did you read my other extra post about
> this? If we include a new level for all "original" info this would rule
> out confusion and clean up a lot of fields we have at the moment.
I agree. We need to make a list of items to go here. In my understanding, it
looks like this would only be used for cases where someone has done a remix of a
song, or a remake of a movie. Then you use "ORIGINAL_" to store data about the
> >>- INVOLVED_PERSON -> CREDITS
> >> Not sure again if this would be wise to change though.
> > I think that CREDITS sounds better and would probably be more intuitive, but
> > would probably induce people to store a list in a single tag instead of
> > tags.
> Drop it completely and add FEATURING like mentioned earlier in this mail.
Those sound like two different items. FEATURING would be someone you see/hear.
INVOLVED_PERSON could be someone like a gaffer or a makeup artist.
> >>- EDITION -> VERSION
> > For DVDs, this is always referred to as the Edition. For instance, I have
> > that are "Directors Cut", "Collector's", "Ultimate", and various other
> > Is this done differently with CDs?
> If it comes to songs I think VERSION would be more suitable. Like "Fear
> Factory - New Breed (Spoetnik Mix)" or "Linkin Park - Dedicated (Demo
> 1999)". They talk about different versions of the song. If you look
> strictly at the definition of both words VERSION would be more suitable
> in both cases, dvd and audio.
> Maybe we should think about a more general name for this instead.
I am open to ideas.
> That would be a duplicate entry. I think only the ratio will be fine
> because most people using terms like "widescreen" or "fullscreen" will
> probably know what they are talking about and therefor know the ratio as
> well. If we give people an extra option they will most likely leave out
> the actual ratio which imo will describe it more accurately and will
> rule out any mistakes.
I'm not sure I follow you, what fields do you want?
> > How would you store this DVD of mine?
> > Bruce Campbell vs. Army Of Darkness
> > The Director' Cut
> > Official Bootleg Edition
> > Widescreen Presentation
> > Photos available here:
> > http://www.jkfanclub.com:81/matroska/Projects/Photos/
> > And yes, the DVD actually says "DVD-R4x Not Really Recordable 96 MIN" and
> > "Un-Recordable 1x-4x Compatible"
> I'll work on a sample tomorrow, the site with the photo's is down and
> it's getting late. ;-)
The site should be working. Perhaps your firewall doesn't like port 81?
I look forward to seeing your sample.
More information about the Matroska-devel