Re: Tidy up of XiphWiki VorbisComment page

Conrad Parker <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2009/6/29 Martin Leese <[email protected]>:
>> I have been tidying up the VorbisComment
>> page in the XiphWiki.
...
>> The problem section is:
>> http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/VorbisComment#New_ENCODER_field_name_proposal
...
> I've sorted it ...

The page contains one more glaring
inconsistency which, I believe, will confuse
implementers.

Near the top under "Proposed field names",
the page lists two external proposals for new
field names.* **  Then lower down under
"Attributing involved parties", it says NO
PROPOSAL and points readers to the
Multimedia Metadata Format (M3F) draft
which uses XML.***

So, does Xiph approve of proposals for new
field names or not?  The page implies both
yes and no.  (For what it is worth, I see the
need for both new field names and M3F.)

Also, I have compared the suggested field
names in the Vorbis I spec**** with those in the
two external proposals.* **  I attach the result
in an Excel spreadsheet (although I am not
sure what the list server will do with an
attachment).  The two proposals use different
field names for the same function, eg,
SOURCEMEDIA and SOURCE MEDIUM.  It
might be beneficial to rationalise these and to
bring the external proposals inside Xiph.

I am happy to do more work on this, but need
guidance from the Xiph community.

Many thanks,
Martin

* http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/VorbisComment#Proposed_field_names
** http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/VorbisComment#Attributing_involved_parties
*** http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/M3F
**** http://xiph.org/vorbis/doc/v-comment.html
-- 
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/

_______________________________________________
Vorbis-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis-dev