[mb-style] CSG: Multi-track movements

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/10/13, David Gibson <musicbrainz at gibson.dropbear.id.au>:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:37:40AM -0400, Dave Smey wrote:
> > On Wed, October 11, 2006 5:23 am, David Gibson said:
> > > As far as I'm aware, the CSG don't specify any particular format for
> > > track titles when a single long movement is split across multiple
> > > tracks.
> > >
> > > Therefore, with davitof's encouragement, I humbly suggest the form
> > > I've used in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5686760.  There
> > > are two parts to this suggestion:
> > >     1) A lowercase letter is appended to the (Roman) movement
> > >        number in each track title to indicate the tracks position
> > >        amongst the other tracks making up the movement.
> > >     2) All track titles except for the last track in the movement
> > >        have a trailing " -" as an extra visual indication that the
> > >        movement continues past the end of the track.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > Yeah, I also think this is good.
>
> Ok.. 4 people like it, no dissentions, little further discussion.
> What's the next step?
>
> --
> David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
> david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
>                                 | _way_ _around_!
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

I suppose Don won't agree to consider this as a RFC...

BTW, I searched the wiki for rfc and rfv, i couldn't find anything. I
remember posts about the rfc phase, but Don suggested it should be
formulated in a specific way (which makes sense, in order to find them
easily)... Ah, I got it: a mail from april 26 So your RFC should start
with "RFC: " and of course a RFV with "RFV: ".

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria