Re: [mb-users] Sorting sub-works and more generally ARs

2013/10/23 tommycrock <[email protected]>

> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
> > Here is my suggestion: add a simple number to ARs which could be used by
> > the AR types which we find relevant. This number would of course be used
> > for ordering.
>
> Unfortunately there's various places that wouldn't achieve what I want. It
> won't work where the links aren't all to one entity or where there's
> multiple sets of ordered links to one work. For example, with medleys, if
> the performance is split over several recordings the numbering wouldn't
> work. Alternatively, if there are two medleys on one recording again it
> wouldn't work.
>

Could you explain why it wouldn't work?



> I'd like to see an ordered list of relationships. However, if something
> like
> that wouldn't be implemented for several years and the simple numbering
> could be quickly then it'd be worth doing that as it would cover many
> cases.
>

What could you be waiting for? What is it which could possibly only be done
in a long time?

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users