not nearly as important as the artist sort, but would've been nice to use if it existed
2010-03-21 08048, 2010
navap
I don't know why the ID3 spec has an album sort name frame.
2010-03-21 08049, 2010
awdyson
yup
2010-03-21 08012, 2010
navap
If it's just the "the"s that are being ignored, any player could do that automatically.
2010-03-21 08033, 2010
awdyson
or I could do it by hand
2010-03-21 08039, 2010
awdyson
just being a bit spoiled
2010-03-21 08043, 2010
awdyson
:D
2010-03-21 08001, 2010
awdyson
well, have a good night/day based on where you are
2010-03-21 08006, 2010
awdyson
and thanks again
2010-03-21 08028, 2010
plamere joined the channel
2010-03-21 08019, 2010
herojoker joined the channel
2010-03-21 08030, 2010
bende joined the channel
2010-03-21 08034, 2010
osmosis_ joined the channel
2010-03-21 08030, 2010
jensl has left the channel
2010-03-21 08015, 2010
brianfreud
lol, navap, I started to write a response to that email, then I realized it was from you, not jacobbrett
2010-03-21 08029, 2010
navap
haha
2010-03-21 08039, 2010
navap
I imagine you disagree with a few things in it :)
2010-03-21 08009, 2010
brianfreud
:P
2010-03-21 08041, 2010
brianfreud
ok... I really am trying to understand his SwissChris' complaint about the ordering of things in the PARC proposal...
2010-03-21 08031, 2010
brianfreud
Is there some difference in meaning (that's escaping me) between "3/4 and half" vs "half and 3/4" - assuming that was actually what the proposed text even said?
2010-03-21 08040, 2010
brianfreud is referring to "it says that half should be treated the same as 3/4 (which is not quite the same thing)"
2010-03-21 08021, 2010
juhae joined the channel
2010-03-21 08056, 2010
AnMaster joined the channel
2010-03-21 08006, 2010
navap
brianfreud: One thing I don't understand is why a lot of your proposals have borken links in them to non-existant pages.
Ah. As I mentioned in my reply to SwissChris, half the existing Attribute pages are currently missing (them, plus the 8 or so ARs that were missing pages).
2010-03-21 08026, 2010
navap
Do the attributes need separate pages though?
2010-03-21 08031, 2010
brianfreud
The AR template auto-generates the link to that page; I just haven't touch the attribute pages yet.
2010-03-21 08050, 2010
navap
Will their definitions always stay the same no matter the relationship using that attribute?
2010-03-21 08052, 2010
brianfreud
My guess is that they'll mostly be just "this attribute is used by the following ARs" backlink pages, for the ones that don't already exist
2010-03-21 08010, 2010
navap
If that's the case then I would much rather not have them there.
2010-03-21 08018, 2010
navap
We don't need more atomization.
2010-03-21 08019, 2010
brianfreud
No, but I think the original idea (which still makes sense to me) was that an attribute always be used in a semi-consistent manner
2010-03-21 08034, 2010
navap
Yeah I get that.
2010-03-21 08051, 2010
brianfreud
the "transliterated" attr being different than the multiple uses of the "translated" attr for example
2010-03-21 08055, 2010
navap
But it looks like the attribute will always be described on the relationship page, so adding a separate page is silly.
however, that said, the description used on the site *is* consistent in the attr definition, so there theoretically could be further detail on such a page.
2010-03-21 08023, 2010
navap
hm?
2010-03-21 08031, 2010
brianfreud
Some will be stub-ish back-linkish. Others, not so much (vocal, instrument, orchesta as examples)
