Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
Rejection of "ignore the" patch (split from the Evil_G unsupported build thread)
saratoga:
--- Quote from: Llorean on May 24, 2007, 10:49:02 AM ---They're not custom. They exist in several tagging specs including ID3.
--- End quote ---
How much software support is there for them?
elborak:
--- Quote from: saratoga on May 24, 2007, 03:47:06 PM ---How much software support is there for them?
--- End quote ---
Assuming you mean tag editors (as playback software would be irrelevant to the current discussion), any that lets you edit arbitrary ID3 tags. Mp3tag would be one.
lalittle:
--- Quote from: Llorean on May 24, 2007, 09:54:47 AM ---Heck, someone could even write a plugin for Rockbox that would (much more slowly) generate sort tags off the existing tags.
--- End quote ---
This, to me, would be a better solution than having to use foobar for this task. I much prefer keeping all the Rockbox-related work within Rockbox itself since it does not necessitate using another, separate application in order to achieve this behavior. Maybe it's largely a psychological difference to have the Rockbox "duties" confined to Rockbox, but for whatever reason it definitely makes a difference to me, and it would make the difference between me having "article free" sorting or not.
Just to give another example of the way my brain works on this stuff, I have all my cover art contained with the mp3's -- this is my preference based on what's important to me. I realize that I can run a batch process on my files that would extract the cover art and create versions of this art that the Rockbox iPod could read and display. I just don't want to have to take the time to do this, however, every time I rip a new album. Therefore, I end up with no art in Rockbox. I understand that this is a "choice" I'm making, but to ME -- to MY personal way of working -- it's not worth the trouble to go through this process in order to achieve the outcome. I WOULD like to have the cover art, and if someone created a Rockbox patch to utilize the native artwork within the files, or that would do this process from within Rockbox, I would use it. Until then, however, I'll just forgoe art in Rockbox.
All that aside, I agree with saratoga on this one, i.e.
--- Quote ---IMO there should be a preprocessor that examines tags when they're loaded. A language specific text file could define what strings should be parsed out, thus allowing intelligent behavior across many different languages while still allowing consistent behavior with other software.
--- End quote ---
This just makes "more sense" to my way of thinking -- even with the arguments against it, it still seems like the "right way" to achieve this behavior. That's just my opinion -- I realize that it's not my choice to make.
Larry
Llorean:
Okay, exactly why does the way that is entirely redundant seem the right way?
The TSOP features need to go in for a number of reasons:
1) They allow easy removal of any article the user chooses.
2) They allow easy sorting of accented characters (by typing non-accented characters in the sort-field)
3) They allow easy various artist support (by using "Various" in the sort field).
It also is just flexible and there are probably other common problems it solves. This basically should go in regardless.
Your method only works with a set list of articles, requires a list in every possible language that could desire to ignore articles, cannot be turned on and off by a song by song basis but rather ignores all articles or none, and does nothing to solve any of the other problems. As well, it would be entirely redundant if the other, imho essential, code went in.
What makes it "right" other than the fact that it requires no user intervention to set up? I think I don't understand what you see as the advantage other than it means users don't have to do a (relatively minor) extra step in making sure their files are properly prepared (a step that can be automated by any enterprising person).
Also, I don't even understand why eliminating the article makes a list easier to read, but you still want the article visible. This is somewhat unrelated, but to me
Bad Religion
Blue October
Blue Oyster Cult
Metallica
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Queen
looks a lot better than
Bad Religion
The Beatles
Blue October
Blue Oyster Cult
etc...
I mean, it's not like they aren't then in alphabetical order under the "The" section, and it presents a more unified look.
But I'm not arguing against the option to remove articles, it just seems silly to waste binary size on a very, very limited solution, and I don't understand why you think it's the "right" solution in the context of Rockbox. The only advantage I see to Rockbox is that it's slightly easier for users, but I think that's far outweighed by the related costs (binary size, since it would in effect be redundant and the fact that it depends on an arbitrary list).
I mean, I understand why you like it more: It's simple, and easy for you to use, and you relate yourself as the average user. But it needs to be fully effective for all users, with a minimum of impact on those who don't use it, and a maximum of flexibility for what is added. So while I don't have a problem with your solution, I don't see how you can state you think it's right for Rockbox, which is multilingual, aimed at (on average) somewhat advanced users, and wants to try to keep the binary size down. (As a note, I'm not certain, but what I know suggests adding 3 tags to the database will result in much less binary increase than a new sorting algorithm with associated menu options and list of articles to avoid).
lalittle:
--- Quote from: Llorean on May 24, 2007, 07:15:06 PM ---Also, I don't even understand why eliminating the article makes a list easier to read, but you still want the article visible. This is somewhat unrelated, but to me
Bad Religion
Blue October
Blue Oyster Cult
Metallica
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Queen
looks a lot better than
Bad Religion
The Beatles
Blue October
Blue Oyster Cult
etc...
I mean, it's not like they aren't then in alphabetical order under the "The" section, and it presents a more unified look.
--- End quote ---
I don't have time to address all your questions at the moment, but I wanted to address this one (I'll post more later.)
Basically, it comes down to preference, and what one "expects" to see based on what they're used to in other systems. I "expect" to see "The Beatles" under "B," which is most likely due to the fact that this is the way other systems work. It is a generally accepted standard for "collections" or "lists" to be sorted by ignoring leading articles. Libraries, indexes, lists of movies, books, songs, etc. all tend to use this approach. I guess the idea is to use the first "important" word when sorting rather than the very first word period. This just makes intuitive sense to a lot of people, which I assume explains why it is in fact a standard. For lack of a better word, it "feels" logical to do it this way.
I'm not sure if this explanation really helps or not (I hope it does at least a little.) This is a highly subjective area, and it's somewhat difficult to explain the specifics of what makes one approach "feel" better than another.
Larry
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version