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

2013/10/27 Tom Crocker <[email protected]>

>
> On 25 October 2013 19:54, David Gasaway <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Okay, so no Artist-related ARs like my example.  It has always irked me
>> that I can't get songwriting credits in order.  But we can leave that out
>> of this discussion, I suppose.
>>
>
> I wasn't trying to be proscriptive. I listed the ones that interest me
> because there's always a clear (time-based) order. But davitof was calling
> for suggestions of other ARs than work-parts and if there's a demand for
> them to be sorted (and their set is defined by having one parent) then lets
> make sure we specify it to accommodate them. I'd never thought of (music)
> writing credits having a 'correct' order...
>
> re: sorting and the UI.
> I think this is slightly complicated by the different ways we already
> display relationships in different circumstances. For inline tracks we have
> a different display for (only?) work ARs than other types because we also
> display inline writing credits. So we have (monospaced if this doesn't work
> for you):
>      samples: a, b, c
> recording of: x
>                  composer p
> recording of: y
>                  composer q
>
> on an entity page we have:
>      samples: a
>               b
>               c
> recording of: x
>               y
>
> For the ARs with extra inline info, sorting is just a case of moving the
> block up and down (I wouldn't be bothered that the link strings weren't
> alphabetically listed). For ARs presented as a comma-separated list or
> newline list I would incorporate as much of the join string as fitted all
> ARs and put the remaining attributes in brackets afterwards:
>
> cover recording of: i (instrumental)
>                     j (partial)
>
> or your example, if we're allowing these to be sorted =
>
> producer: x, y, z (assistant)
>
>
> Thoughts?
>

At least the result seems easy to understand. I hope there wouldn't be much
issues with the development, but your remarks remind us that adding a new
field is only the first step in implementing a new feature :-)



>  [OT] I wish link types were less alphabetically sorted and more sorted
> by type, i.e. separate performance credits from production credits, vocals
> from instruments, etc. [/OT]
>

Maybe we need an order field there too :-)

-- 
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