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

2013/10/25 Tom Crocker <[email protected]>

>  On Oct 24, 2013 8:37 AM, "David Gasaway" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Tom Crocker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> What the UI currently does isn't very important.
> >
> > If I read between the lines, you're saying that the UI would change?  If
> it stays as-is, applying a sort number to all three from my example as a
> group has no useful outcome.  So I'm still in the dark as to what you would
> consider a group of ARs that needs to be sorted.  And know I don't even
> know what kind of UI you are imagining. :)
> >
> >>
> >> The release UI shows credits inline (sorted by track) or per join
> string.
> >
> >
> > I had recording view in mind, but release inline view works, too.
> Sorting wouldn't work in the "credits at bottom" view, as far as I can
> figure.
>
> Given we don't have sorting currently I can't imagine how we would
> implement it without some sort of UI change. What I was meaning about track
> credits on releases is we can display the same ARs sorted in different ways
> - sorry I'm not being very clear!
>

Sorting would have to be subsidiary to any dates. But not other attributes
> IMO (the sort number would be an attribute I guess).
>

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you explain in other words?
Or maybe with examples?


Groups of ARs that really need sorting (and could be with the kind of
> structure proposed here):
> Work -Work :
> Medley
> Parts
>
> Recording -Work :
> Performance of (medleys are soon to be attributes here) but for example,
> one performance could be instrumental, another partial, but they only
> appear in one order on a recording.
>
Ah, yes: most often sorting should apply for ARs with all attributes
identical, but sometimes it would be better if sorting did not take some
attributes into account. Should we consider this as a corner case which
happens rarely enough that we can just stick to the simple rule "sorting
should apply for ARs with all attributes identical" and use comments for
the few situations where this rule does not allow to match reality? Or can
we assume that solving this complexity will only affect the AR parameters,
so that the AR editing UI can remain simple?



> Recording -Recording :
> Compilation, DJ mix.
> Possibly also samples?
>
> There might be some others where it would be useful but I don't think all
> should be able to be sorted
>

I agree, most ARs probably don't need to be sortable.

-- 
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