I don't know what others think, but my reason would be: never use a word to designate something else than what people generally use it for. That's bound to trigger misinterpretations and in our situation induce users to enter bad (because misplaced) data. So: don't use recordings if it is not recordings, or at least reasonably close to it. A mix is not reasonably close to a recording IMO.
2013/4/12 lixobix <arjtap...@aol.com> > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote > > If we replace Recording with Mix (which > > we will do at some point), we get "A MusicBrainz Mix is defined as a > > unique > > mix, where a mix is the > > result of editing and/or mixing". This makes defining a Mix as a > > mix+editing unavoidable. > > True, but what is achieved by getting rid of 'recording'? Are we planning > to > define this as something separate in future? Why not keep 'recording' and > define it in terms of 'mix' or 'edit' (in terms of edit as I define it)? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651431.html > Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
