[mb-style] CSG

[Andrew Conkling]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Brian Schweitzer
> <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  But it seems we're heading towards A or B, or seemingly less likely,
> >  some optional version of C.   If so, fine - but at that point, I wash
> >  my hands of classical at MB.  If we're going to be nitpicking the
> >  correct capitalization, spacing, etc of everything else, yet we're
> >  willing to list classical such that it's either vague or downright
> >  useless (as I see those two options), then that's fine, I'd have to
> >  live with that - but that's not something I'm willing to expend any
> >  effort towards doing.
>
>
> or how about an F, as I've now said for what the fourth time?
>
> Work on a CSGS for work titles, and accept that it's too complex for
> the DB and it's users to deal with just yet.  (That's a positive, if
> you choose to see it as one.  It gives you a lot of freedom for
> formatting characters, if you want.)


Yes, I agree; this seems to me to be the best way to accommodate everyone
right now.

And accept that just because you find A, B, C and D useless, doesn't
> mean that any or all of our _consumers_ find it so.
>

Brian, I kinda objected to CSGS when I first started up again, but it wasn't
because I find A-D particularly useful (or even preferred) but because I
find E to be so dauntingly incomplete. I see it as a great goal--especially
when we can accommodate everyone's taste for tags--and am certainly
interested in helping out with it.

I certainly wouldn't want to lose your appreciated efforts.

Cheers,
Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080225/3af2fc3b/attachment.htm