[Playlist] spec comments

[Matthias Friedrich]

On Monday, 2005-06-27, Lucas Gonze wrote:
> Bjorn Wijers wrote:

[...]
>> playlist element 'link' description 
>> [http://www.xspf.org/xspf-v1.html#rfc.section.4.1.1.2.11]
>> track element 'link' description 
>> [http://www.xspf.org/xspf-v1.html#rfc.section.4.1.1.2.14.1.1.1.11]

> I agree that this is an omission.

> Thoughts on just copying over the cardinality notes from 4.1.1.2.11 to 
> 4.1.1.2.14.1.1.1.11:
> "xspf:playlist elements MAY contain zero or more link elements."

> ?

Sure, the schemas have it that way already.

[...]
> The architectural problem with track metadata is that things like 
> license/ song title/ band name have to do with stuff not intrinsic to 
> the playlist.  An XSPF document has its own integrity, in the sense that 
> you can be certain about it being well-formed and valid, so an XSPF 
> reader can infer that the author of the playlist had the right to make a 
> statement about its own licensing status.  That's not true for external 
> stuff which the playlist points to.

Well said!

I remember we thought about adding a license element on the track level
but we realised that we'd need licensing information for each location
and identifier.

--Matthias