Fwd: ATF: Stop spreading FUD about other media players

[Jeff Mitchell]

On Thursday 17 August 2006 17:34, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> When the ID3 standard says "contains" it means "is". (emphasis mine):

That is not specified.  When you find where in

http://www.id3.org/id3v2.4.0-structure.txt
or
http://www.id3.org/id3v2.4.0-frames.txt

it specifies the exact meaning of "contains" I'll believe you.  

> It's clear from context that "contains" means "is". I realize you want
> to have a nice all-caps advertisement for Amarok; too bad.

It's not clear from the context of the UFID frame specification.  Our actual 
string is not all-caps in our code; we just .upper() it for ease of 
comparison later :-)

> My point is that, even regardless of whether your interpretation of
> "contains a URL" is valid, you still never actually document the owner
> subkey you use. Therefore, it can't be supported.

That's funny.  Didn't you just say "I realize you want to have a nice all-caps 
advertisement for Amarok?"  How would you know it's all caps if you haven't 
seen it?  And since you've seen it, it can be supported.

Actually, I know you've seen it, because it's been on some emails on the 
taglib-devel list.

> If we share the same algorithm for UID generation, then there's no
> problem. However, I can safely say that Quod Libet won't be generating
> these IDs, just using them where possible.

Okay.  So you know our owner identifier.  Excellent.  Now you can use it.

> You've missed my point again: What's the name of the Vorbis comment
> field? It's useless to just say "it's a field" without saying what the
> field's key is.

Vorbis comment fields don't have names.  They have key:value pairs.  Hence the 
name is the same string as the owner string for ID3v2 UFID frames.

> Consider this a request. Of course, you could be more proactive: Quod
> Libet documents its tag usage long before anyone asks, and we also don't
> talk down other players that don't support them all. You're certainly
> proactive about pointing out what *doesn't* support them.

Kudos to you for your documentation efforts.  It's also good to know that you 
don't advertise your unique features (or at least, as being unique).

> Then why are you criticizing other players for not having the feature?
> Technical details should come long before advertisements.

After all this time I have yet to figure out what technical details you want 
other than our owner ID and what characters that may be used in our unique 
IDs.  Figuring out what to do with those IDs will be highly dependent on your 
application's structure.  You know what ATF does for the end user.  You know 
the owner ID we use, if you want to use it, and I can provide you with the 
characters that may be used in our UIDs (which you won't even need if you 
never will be writing them yourself).

--Jeff