On 19/09/06, Sam Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is possibly more relevant to terminology discussion, but I think a > lot of the problems we are having with terminology stem from the fact > that different people have a different ideas on what they expect a XXX > to be.
Which is exactly why I started this thread. So that we are all standing on common ground when we speak of XXX. > On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:47 +0200, Marcus Hast wrote: > > On 9/19/06, Dotan Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Also, if the default is to show all the tags, then what is the > > > difference between tags and albums? The whole album effect could be > > > gotten by creating a top-level tag called Albums and adding tags under > > > it, each an album. > > > > The pictures belonging to an Album are ordered, pictures belonging to > > a tag are not. > > As I see it a picture belongs to an album and a tag belongs to a > picture, not the other way round. I think this distinction is > fundamental. A tag is just an arbitrary piece of meta data, an album is > some kind of container. Also here, I agree with you. By that thinking, a picture could belong to only one single album, which I happen to agree with. Hwoever, that was frowned upon on the list. I personally like the idea. > > Personally I think it would be a good idea if more meta information > > could be added to an Album as well. Eg a description of the album and > > things like that. > > > > It could be implemented similarly to a tag however. > > > I like the idea of having further information about an album, and I > really see the benefit of having it as an ordered collection (it took me > some thinking). If we go down the line of meta data about albums then > why can't we tag them? (I'm not sure if it is a good idea as yet just > putting it out there) I've seen people discussing using tags to mark > photos for export, and I seem to remember that this sort of thing was > frowned upon by Larry when done automatically (that could be me getting > the wrong end of the stick). I'm not sure that tagging albums is nessaccary. I think that it would just add complexity. You've already got your pictures sorted into albums, and they are tagged within the albums. > For this is it worth having a second class of tag called a flag? The > idea being that flags can be added to a photo but are not visible as > tags, they would not appear in the list or with the photos. Then just create a new top-level tag called Flags, and don't ever expand it! Dotan Cohen _______________________________________________ F-spot-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
