search for: attributing_involved_parties

...on. Another problem is attribution of involved parties. Currently only the ARTIST field name is supported in software. More standardised field names need to be worked out for organisations and persons involved in the production of the recording. See: http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/VorbisComment#Attributing_involved_parties I have made a some suggestions, but as I have said earlier: Vorbis comments are no good when it comes to including information about musicans, labels, and other involved persons and organisations. A XML replacement to Vorbis comments would provide better mechanisms for defining this. On Wednes...

...lem is attribution of involved parties. Currently only the > ARTIST field name is supported in software. More standardised field names > need to be worked out for organisations and persons involved in the > production of the recording. See: > http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/VorbisComment#Attributing_involved_parties > > I have made a some suggestions, but as I have said earlier: Vorbis comments > are no good when it comes to including information about musicans, labels, > and other involved persons and organisations. A XML replacement to Vorbis > comments would provide better mechanisms for defi...

So wiki discussion on the new metadata format is ongoing. I'd like to move some things about a bit. MDMF is a discussion of the metadata XML format itself, Metadata gives some background an overview and a few old sample cases. I'm not sure how many people read the wiki talk page so I thought I'd ask here if there were any objections before doing it. What would most likely happen

I have been tidying up the VorbisComment page in the XiphWiki. The problem with it was that it was a mixture of proposals and discussion of those proposals. This made it difficult for implementers to see what to implement. The problem section is: http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/VorbisComment#New_ENCODER_field_name_proposal This is a mess, and all I could do was add attributions to the