| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 22, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
if he put it that way it would take care of both problems as a single letter wouldn't be a word.  A = not a word I = not a word -Agrare |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,329 |
| | Posted: | | | | LOL... well sure there is a couple exceptions but that is not exactly what I meant. I was saying where he was worried when it shows something like....
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre....
So I guess I should rephrase a single letter within a word would not be a word. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,916 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
Missed from my earlier notes:
- Added bold/italic to overview. Does this also mean that line wraps will be preserved in the XML export? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 51 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
Does this also mean that line wraps will be preserved in the XML export? Did you have problems with line wraps in the export? For myself all line wraps in the overview field are exported to the xml. Never noticed a problem there. | | | Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience.
Wir gegen die Gier - Joseph Weizenbaum (1923 - 2008):
Nichts wird unsere Kinder und Kindeskinder vor einer irdischen Hölle retten.
Es sei denn: Wir organisieren den Widerstand gegen die Gier des globalen Kapitalismus. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,916 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rincewind: Quote:
Did you have problems with line wraps in the export? For myself all line wraps in the overview field are exported to the xml. Never noticed a problem there. They exist but since there is no CDATA block wrapping them, they are stripped from XML translation. If the bold/italics are created using HTML, then a CDATA block will need to be added to the XML export since < is not a valid XML data character if they aren't escaped with an <. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
Quoting rincewind:
Quote:
Did you have problems with line wraps in the export? For myself all line wraps in the overview field are exported to the xml. Never noticed a problem there.
They exist but since there is no CDATA block wrapping them, they are stripped from XML translation. If the bold/italics are created using HTML, then a CDATA block will need to be added to the XML export since < is not a valid XML data character if they aren't escaped with an <. No, you are wrong in both cases. A proper XML parser does not strip or normalize line wraps or any other whitespace within XML elements, only whitespace between elements, e.g. <Items> <--- whitespace normalized/stripped here <Item>whitespace including linewraps preserved here</Item> </Items> The bold/italic markers can either be escaped as it is currently done for HTML in the Notes field, or HTML-like tags can be used, because a closing tag is needed anyway. But I would suggest escaping, because in the latter case, overlapping tags have to be prevented by the program, e.g. Valid XML: <Overview>Stuff <b>bold</b> more stuff.</Overview> <Overview>Stuff <b><i>bold and italic</i></b> more stuff.</Overview> Invalid XML: <Overview>Stuff <b>bold <i>bold and italic</b> italic</i> more stuff.</Overview> Quoting Beastus: Quote:
Funny that with all the additions (distributor, Blu-ray regions, Disc ID, custom genres) the one that people are excited about is the italic option in the overview.  I assure you that I'm not excited at all about it. I have argued against it in the past, but a lot of people wanted it, and now Ken has done it. | | | | Matthias | | | | Last edited: by goodguy |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goodguy: Quote:
I assure you that I'm not excited at all about it. I have argued against it in the past, but a lot of people wanted it, and now Ken has done it. At least, it's better than the solution that the rules ask for today. | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken,
I'd urge you to call the Distributor field something else. Taken literally, it provides information that is both useless and often transitory. Case in point: DVDs produced by Synapse are currently (note "currently" because they didn't use to be) distributed through Image. Image doesn't appear anywhere on the packaging though, even though it's the "distributor." The same DVDs were distributed by someone else before the current distribution deal with Image. Same thing for The Criterion Collection. I think you may be wanting something like DVD Label or DVD Producing Studio or DVD Studio, which captures the company that actually released the DVD as opposed to the company that does order filling for them. I can't imagine why anyone would want to get that information rather than (or in preference to) the company that produces the DVD. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 465 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tweeter: Quote:
Ken,
Can we expect some rules updates to go with the new version? Yes, this is indeed necessary. Not only for overviews, as already mentioned, but also for studios. With the current rules we would have the DVD distributor in the old 'studios' list (assuming there were less than three other studios to enter) and in the new field. | | | | Michael |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,916 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goodguy: Quote:
A proper XML parser does not strip or normalize line wraps or any other whitespace within XML elements, only whitespace between elements Okay, I'll have to have words with the developers of the Yahoo Widgets engine... Had me thinking it was expected behavior seeing it behave that way. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
Ken,
I'd urge you to call the Distributor field something else. Taken literally, it provides information that is both useless and often transitory. Case in point: DVDs produced by Synapse are currently (note "currently" because they didn't use to be) distributed through Image. Image doesn't appear anywhere on the packaging though, even though it's the "distributor." The same DVDs were distributed by someone else before the current distribution deal with Image. Same thing for The Criterion Collection. I think you may be wanting something like DVD Label or DVD Producing Studio or DVD Studio, which captures the company that actually released the DVD as opposed to the company that does order filling for them. I can't imagine why anyone would want to get that information rather than (or in preference to) the company that produces the DVD. That won't be much of a problem if there are multiple fields for the distributors. That allows for things like Media Blasters (which has multiple sublabels like Tokyo Shock or Shriek Show) and The Criterion Collection (which has Eclipse). Hopefully the rules will clarify things to prevent such a literall reading into "Distributor". |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | This is almost surreal. the Distributor field are features which have been requested for years, AND promised by Ken, and now people are already panic stricken and ready to impose bizzare problems into it. If you don't know what a DVD distributor well, then there is little hope.
As for the Italics/Bold, also long sought and long-promised and Mathias was one of the few nay-sayers. It was known at the time that the ' Rule was written that it was merely an interim solution. Now we will have an operative answer finally.
While I have seen ken do SOME thigs that leave me scratching my head, these are NOT two of them, nor do I have ANY problem whatsoever understanding what a DVD Distributor is or is not.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | All right then, is Image a distributor for The Criterion Collection or isn't it?
This is one of those things that like "Production Year" that actually means "Release Year" could be clarified BEFORE it creates all sorts of questions and issues unnecessarily. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." | | | | Last edited: by gardibolt |
|
  | Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Dear God!  Can't we all just wait for the release, and take it from there?!  Obviously it is right around the corner, so I doubt all this nagging will produce any significant changes - let's see what it looks like, and start nagging afterwards!  | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! | | | | Last edited: by Berak |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,108 |
| | Posted: | | | | It would be nice to have something new to play with over the weekend. | | | | Last edited: by Doombear |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
All right then, is Image a distributor for The Criterion Collection or isn't it?
This is one of those things that like "Production Year" that actually means "Release Year" could be clarified BEFORE it creates all sorts of questions and issues unnecessarily. Since you asked the answer is no, Image is not a distributor in that case. That relationship is much like the various Disney branches, gard. Image produces the discs and turns them "over" to Criterion for DISTRIBUTION, just like Disney DVD is NOT a Distributor, BVHE is the distributor for ALL things Disney. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|