Re: [mb-users] Missing cover art type?
lixobix <[email protected]> Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
tommycrock wrote > On 29 September 2014 16:09, lixobix < > arjtaplin@ > > wrote: > >> In that case the definition of booklet needs to be changed, but I don't >> see >> how booklet could be redefined as a single print on the reverse of the >> front >> or back cover. Why would inside be too vague? >> > > I was remembering (wrongly) HibiscusKazeneko adding liner: > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-233-New-cover-art-types-tp4657293p4657497.html > I just guess inside could be lots of things depending on how people see it > (inside a booklet, anything inside the outer packaging ...) but it would > be > good to deal with some of these cases better > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users I'm not sure that it would be confusing, given the other types and descriptions. Providing it is defined correctly, something like: "artwork printed on the inside of the packaging, which is not any of the other types". I suppose that's a residual definition, and whilst in most cases I'm talking about the reverse side of a CD jewel case's front cover, the definition should also include the inner panels of a gatefold sleeve. In the context of the other types it should be clear enough. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Missing-cover-art-type-tp4668321p4668537.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.