[FMPS] FMPS Draft 4 posted

[Jeff Mitchell]

Draft 4 has been posted.

The entire spec has gone through a major rewrite/cleanup, separating out
information into subsections for easier referencing.

In addition, to get around the identifier-UTF8 problem, "lists" are
defined and used throughout the spec. This actually has resulted in (I
believe) quite a bit more cleanliness in the overall design.

I also added a section on compilation identifiers...see the section text
for information.

There are three TODO items:

1) Use RFC-style language. I didn't do this yet since so much was
changing, but if people are happy with the way things are now I'll go
through and put this in.

2) Licensing tags? I've had requests for this but I have no experience
with music licensing, so I'll be talking to those that do. That being
said, if this is something that will take a while to figure out, I'd
rather save it for a post-1.0 version of the spec.

3) Select an appropriate license. (GFDL? CC?)

Please do provide feedback. I feel that it's been maturing nicely, and
that we may be close to a point where we can finalize a v1.0.

BTW, this has now been merged into the main xdg-specs repository. You
can find the text at

http://gitorious.org/xdg-specs/xdg-specs/blobs/master/specifications/FMPSpecs/specification.txt

--Jeff

[Karl Vollmer]

I finally got around to looking through this. I'm happy with the
changes made and everything seems to be in line with what we had
already discussed. Comments inline..

> There are three TODO items:
>
> 1) Use RFC-style language. I didn't do this yet since so much was
> changing, but if people are happy with the way things are now I'll go
> through and put this in.

I was mentally putting it in while reading the spec, if you want I
can take a shot at this once the conceptial stuff is "done"

>
> 2) Licensing tags? I've had requests for this but I have no experience
> with music licensing, so I'll be talking to those that do. That being
> said, if this is something that will take a while to figure out, I'd
> rather save it for a post-1.0 version of the spec.

I think we should save this for post 1.0 as I'd like to see this
spec out in the wild sooner rather then later, and I don't think it's
a show stopper.

>
> 3) Select an appropriate license. (GFDL? CC?)

Your decision is as good as mine, I don't know much about
spec/documentation licenses.

-Karl