are we getting anywhere with this one? as far as i know no guidelines
(either new or amendments to BoxSetNameStyle) have come of it, and the
problem is still as it was before.
i still maintain my position that we currently index by tracklist, not
product. until label/cat# support appears, i don't
are we getting anywhere with this one? as far as i know no
guidelines (either new or amendments to BoxSetNameStyle) have
come of it, and the problem is still as it was before.
I actually don't see it as a problem. Having the duplicates in the database
until we can change the schema of the
2006/4/8, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The way I look at this. We're cataloging albums. Granted, we have a tagger
and tagging capabilities. However, it is not our knowledge if end user does
not have the album, or does not keep the album all together. Eventually the
tagger will be able to add the
2006/4/9, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2006/4/8, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Therefore, the tag would show the annotation in perhaps the comment
box on whatever supported format the user utilized for
their music library.
The tagger should show information the way the user wants the
2006/4/9, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2006/4/8, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Therefore, the tag would show the annotation in perhaps
the comment
box on whatever supported format the user utilized for
their music
library.
The tagger should show information the way the user
On 4/8/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was asking because Robert wrote: Once we get a few
(more) into the database, we will see how people have been adding
them and only then start creating official guidelines for how DVDs
will be entered, but in order to do this, we must be
Chris Bransden wrote:
On 08/04/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a little question, how will we know (or how do we say) that an
entry is a dvd. Maybe this is already handled but I couldn't find any
reference to it.
annotation
I don't think this is a sufficient solution
I do think we should have an attribute of video, or dvd, or other added to
the album, single, ep tree. If it's possible.
Beth aka Nyght
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of derGraph
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 2:42 PM
To: MusicBrainz
Orion wrote:
How is formatting them as Video: Title really different from
formatting them as Title (DVD)?
That's simple: it is not. Except that DVD is media specific. And the
format [Video] Title also has the advantage that the brackets are not
taken by another style guideline.
I just
On 09/04/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are we getting anywhere with this one? as far as i know no
guidelines (either new or amendments to BoxSetNameStyle) have
come of it, and the problem is still as it was before.
I actually don't see it as a problem. Having the duplicates
IMO it's at odds with how people will be using them. if i'm tagging my
audio rip of a live performance dvd, having Video: X seems
unneccesary. and if you're tagging a video rip (assuming the tagger
could do so, and in time i suppose it probably will), it would be even
more unneccasary, as of
On 4/8/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/4/8, Adam Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 4/7/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re-reading this post... 2006/4/2, Adam Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]: note that we also need a way to handle multiple publications of a
You can start thinking about things if we had label, catno support, because
that's the next thing I hope we'll add to the server. Currently we are
cleaning up the code, and after that, we'll implement the things that were
on the plate for quite some time (artistpageredesign, label/catno,
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 10:42:05PM +0200, derGraph wrote:
As long as we don't have such an attribute we could either stop adding
DVDs (but I'm too much a realist to believe this would happen), or change
the album titles, maybe [Video] Title or Video: Title.
I think this is even worse than
14 matches
Mail list logo
