Peter van Hardenberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond again to the last version of the > thread. Thanks for posting a second draft of the specs. They're shaping > up nicely and this version is a good improvement.
No problem. > Deciding on floats for rating seems like mostly a good decision. If a > number is > 0 and < 1 it's a pretty safe conclusion that it's a float > rating. On the other hand, it means any track rated maximally will be a > "1", which is widely used as a very low value. Perhaps the solution > there is to say that the float value must include a decimal point and a > zero to eliminate ambiguity of interpretation. Good idea. I'll put that in the next draft. > I'd like to voice some concern about writing two forms of rating to the > file. Also, though Amarok tracks two forms of rating, I don't think the > current automatic vs user distinction makes sense. For example, if I > introduce automatic rating to Songbird through an extension, I don't > think it would be good for me to overwrite the existing Amarok inserted > value created by a different algorithm. If you feel strongly about > including it, perhaps instead of using two specific forms of rating > (auto and user), we could consider arbitrary types of rating. <snip> I have an alternate proposal, based off of yours: what if the automatic ratings were identified by the algorithm used. The algorithm could include User as the canonical rating, and Critic ratings -- I really like that idea and could see interesting uses for it -- as human brains are an algorithm unto themselves. Then algorithms could be identified by name. That way, if two players wanted to collaborate on a rating algorithm, they could easily interoperate; otherwise, no one will (hopefully) clobber each other. So you'd end up with something like: FMPS_Rating_User (canonical rating, set by user) FMPS_Rating_Critic_Ralph=Gleason FMPS_Rating_Critic_Metacritic FMPS_Rating_Algorithm_Supercool (collaborative) FMPS_Rating_Algorithm_AmarokAutorating (player-specific) Of course, nothing stops one from putting in a frame like > Amarok_AutomaticRating > Songbird_AutomaticRating > Songbird_Rating_User:pvh > Songbird_Rating_Metacritic but one could be assured that if it starts with FMPS, it adheres to the spec. Thoughts? --Jeff
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
