On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Lemire, Sebastien <m...@benji99.ca> wrote: > One thing about this, I think it would be important to also be able to > assign an order to the parts so that the movements/parts are > displayed/listed in the correct order. While Symphony movements should > be easy to sort as they should all have I. II. III., etc, some other > work types (particularly Opera) wouldn't be sorted properly. > > This should probably be done as an attribute at the time of link the two > works.
For this we would need an attribute that went from 0 to n, because we don't know what the limit is going to be. I can see how ordering is useful but I think we should talk with the devs and look for a better way. > Sebastien > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Simon Reinhardt > <simon.reinha...@koeln.de> wrote: >> Alex Mauer wrote: >>> The RFC period has ended for this proposal[1], with no major objections. >>> I have updated the proposal with some more guidelines for its use based >>> on the list response, and so bring this to RFV status. >>> >>> 1. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Work_Parts_Relationship >> >> +1 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MusicBrainz-style mailing list >> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >> > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
