Hi all,
Ok, so let me start by saying that the title isn't serious. There are
some CSG issues that would probably benefit from some documented
clarification, but...
I have just spent a couple of hours reading through a pile of this
stuff and I now have a headache. So, with the thought that there
So long as we allow standard punctuation to be used as 100% ok, when
we're not yet ready to present a copy/paste alternative (via master
lists or an eventual generic works structure), can we then at least
permit the use of dashes, en-dashes, em-dashes, and language-correct
(for the CSG
On 11 Feb 2008 at 13:30, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Question is, how do we list them? Given a Minuet submovement that
moves to a Trio submovement and then returns to the Minuet
submovement, how do we indicate this?
One option would be to leave them out.
On that note, I'm still waiting for a
On 11 Feb 2008 at 13:12, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I'm still unclear how a guideline that says you can use standard
punctuation, but we prefer correct punctuation presents a barrier or
confusion.
As I said, inconsistent data.
On the users side, how does the punctuation used present any
On Feb 11, 2008 9:42 AM, David K. Gasaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7 Feb 2008 at 0:44, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
It's civil up to here:
Come on, now. This whole thread has been pretty civil. :)
Now that I think about it, ten people arguing and no trolling at all,
I'd say it wasn't bad at all
On Feb 11, 2008 8:42 AM, David K. Gasaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Feb 2008 at 2:52, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Considering that the en-dash, the em-dash, the minus, and the hyphen
each are different punctuation marks, if some people are choosing to see
the distinction between them as
* Alex and Lauri seem to argue that the correct (they don't seem to
disagree on that) punctuation marks are hard-to-impossible to use, and
are against requiring them. (It's not clear to me if they at least agree
to allow or encourage their use.)
This is actually closer to how I feel on the
I think, perhaps, you have a misunderstanding of what catalogue
numbers mean.
I think I understand well enough. For you, the term work has a very
precise meaning that isn't necessarily universally shared. Yes, there
may be different works (using your definition) cataloged under a single
On 11 Feb 2008 at 15:57, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
What exactly do you mean by conclusively demonstrate?
More or less what you tried to do: cite authoritative sources. The
problem is that the way I've phrased the question, it's difficult (or
even, unlikely) to find an answer by googling for the
Better description of what these are at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BrianFreud/sandbox?highlight=%28sandbox%29#CSGdacapostructure
Question is, how do we list them? Given a Minuet submovement that
moves to a Trio submovement and then returns to the Minuet
submovement, how do we indicate this?
I've not yet received the digest with Cadalach's email, but I have
seen it on the web-version, so forgive me note quoting anything here.
:)
I think the question is quite valid. To me, though, it's a pretty
obvious answer.
Reading back when CSG first came about, in 2004, CSG and remixes were
Don (Caladach)
Welcome to the thread. Thank you for your thoughts.
Cadalach wrote:
...I have just spent a couple of hours reading through a pile of this
stuff and I now have a headache
I sympathise!
Cadalach wrote:
...As far as I have been able to tell MB is not some kind of
On 7-Feb-08, at 3:14 PM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
Aaron:
Lots of thoughtful work on this proposal. Thank you.
Aaron Cooper-3 wrote:
Please take a look at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistsStyleProposal
Please share your thoughts and concerns.
* I think How to determine step 5
On 11 Feb 2008 at 3:00, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
This still has that same flaw in the theory though. While a single
catalogue number does identify a fully identifiable work, it does not
identify a distinct unit. It never was intended to identify one and
only one distinct work. It identifies
On 7 Feb 2008 at 0:44, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
It's civil up to here:
Come on, now. This whole thread has been pretty civil. :)
David K. Gasaway seems to argue against them, apparently on the reason
that such characters are used inconsistently in practice.
This is a slight misstatement (not
On 11 Feb 2008 at 4:10, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
So long as we allow standard punctuation to be used as 100% ok, when
we're not yet ready to present a copy/paste alternative (via master
lists or an eventual generic works structure), can we then at least
permit the use of dashes, en-dashes,
16 matches
Mail list logo
