Hello, I finally have time to really dig down into this and work on it some more...I have a few things on my plate that were requested by various people, such as the RFC-style language, the addition of some common play stats, and so on, but I've hit a roadblock.
Cristoph Reiter contacted me mentioning that although VorbisComments allows UTF-8 in the text of the comment, it only allows a certain subset of ASCII in the field name (not including an equal sign) -- which means that anything variable that might have appeared in a field name is now restricted. I thought about this a bit and believe I have a solution. Pretty much all languages that do string handling (and most do) have a split function. So instead of something like: FMPS_Rating_User_Jeff=Mitchell=0.82 FMPS_Rating_Critic_Ralph=Gleason=0.8 FMPS_Rating_Critic_Metacritic=0.72 FMPS_Rating_Critic_Rolling_Stone=0.9 you'd get a single field, but with multiple values contained therein: FMPS_Rating_Critic=User;Jeff Mitchell;0.82::Person;Ralph Gleason;0.8::Publication;Rolling Stone;0.9::Publication;Metacritic;0.72 There are a few things to discuss above: 1) As you can see, this concatenates the values using a separator, with those values themselves separated. This stems from the way that ID3v2 allows multiple values, although separated by a null byte, which sucks for easy, high-level string processing or manual editing by advanced users. Does this seem like a reasonable thing to do? The rest of the questions are predicated on the answer to the above being "yes" :-) 2) What should the separators be? Could there be a publication like "tl;dr" or "Coder::Music"? Something readable yet not likely to be found naturally is nice. 3) What about the categories? I figure that User (non-critic), Person (professional critic) and Publication (including web sites, since those are publications) should suffice. But perhaps there should be a Website category; or perhaps for Publications there should be a way not only to have the publication name but the actual critic that did the review for that publication (but ideally while keeping the number of fields the same). Thoughts? Once I get some feedback and get this problem sorted out, I should have a new draft for your perusal in pretty short order. Thanks, Jeff
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
