I agree on flexibility.
But common use cases are less common than one migth think .
Sadly the business of playing digital files has no real standards or
agreed opon ways to do
Stuff .
Observe how badly digital downloads are tagged rigth from the vendor or
label :/
Indont even think tags is the
Mnyb wrote:
> I agree on flexibility.
>
> But common use cases are less common than one migth think .
> Sadly the business of playing digital files has no real standards or
> agreed opon ways to do
> Stuff .
> More things could happen if people with skills wanted to join the
> project .
>
> At
Mnyb wrote:
> Mherger has actually extended LMS to be easier for anyone to extend
> aditional browse modes plugin
> Is just one thing that came about out off this.
>
> If i understod him correctly . If someone today wanted to write erland
> like plugins that changes how we browse and search
Mnyb wrote:
> But common use cases are less common than one migth think .
> Sadly the business of playing digital files has no real standards or
> agreed opon ways to do
> Stuff .
i know what you're saying, but i don't agree... many major rippers,
like WMP, winamp, EAC, etc... will tag without
BJW wrote:
>
> it would be good if we could list all known tags [field values] server
> already reads into the server, and make a list of all the ones we would
> want added, be it for classical, ratings, what have you.
Since my only strong opinion here is about how classical music is
neglected,
BJW wrote:
> and yes, it was always techie, which imo lead to that failure, but not
> on purpose. the mere fact that it included "itunes integration" shows
> that it was trying to anticipate non-techie, common use scenarios, at
> least, once upon a time. whats more common than itunes?
You know
