Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CoLoBoT 15th Anniversary Preparations
I'd like to explain the reasons why I mentioned the problems with filenames. Yes, if we lived in a perfect world it would be great if filenames could be as human readable as standard titles. However, we don't live in a perfect world. I'm sorry that I didn't provide any arguments for that, I thought that the post is too long already and I don't have to explain it in the forum strongly connected with IT.

So, the reasons for keeping filenames simple:

  1. Titles are already in meta tags, that's the purpose of the meta tags. The filenames have only one purpose: to identify the file. It certainly doesn't need to contain every information, you view the information when you open the file.
  2. Simple titles are for end-user convenience. Spaces are problematic in filenames to this day, especially when you're managing them in command line. It's common in software to have problems with spaces in filenames (yes, it shouldn't have, but sometimes it happens, even in the most popular ones, usually in the most unexpected ways). Example: if we decided to put a direct link to one of the files, the spaces would be replaced with something like %20 and this would make the URL much harder to read. Well, we could argue that nobody cares about URLs or that only a small percent of users would encounter any issues with spaces and that we could just rename the files on the server, but isn't it better to keep things unified and... simple? 
  3. Punctuation signs in filenames are terrible, especially when you put dots (which are for file extensions), commas, exclamation marks... They make the filename harder to read actually. I don't agree with putting in filenames anything else than numbers, Latin letters, and underscores (maybe hyphens, although I don't like them). Any good media player will show the proper title for the user, the filenames shouldn't be forcefully the same as meta titles. To be honest, if I saw commas or weird monsters like "You lose....flac" or "You win!.flac" or "Something, something, commas, something.flac" in an official release, I'd have negative feeling and would think something along the lines "I don't know who was responsible for this release, but he screw up the job". Punctuation signs or other weird characters (Polish, Chinese letters in filenames... seriously?) just don't belong to filenames and I've yet to encounter such monstrous filenames as I've seen in the first package. Don't take it as an offense. That's just how it is.
  4. Believe me or not, but some operating systems (yes, Windows, I'm looking at ya) still can have problems with long paths or weird filenames, as I encountered such problems not long time ago. Unfortunately, said operating systems are the most popular, so yeah. Although long paths are probably not something we should worry about, unless we get 20 nested directories.
However, I back off a little. Spaces in filenames are common even in my own music library, so I'd be a hypocrite if I'd enforce lack of them. The rest of my arguments still stand though. Here are some examples of some of the filenames from different albums (legally obtained):
  • Amnesia OST - 01 - Menu Theme.flac
  • Ben Prunty Music - FTL - 01 Space Cruise (Title).flac
  • 01 - In the Beginning.mp3
  • 01 The Chosen Roadie.flac
  • Symphony_No_5_by_Beethoven.mp3 (This one is downloaded from YouTube Creative Commons library and all of the files from there have underscores)
As you can see, the filenames are as simple as possible, the only "weird" signs they contain are hypens, spaces and underscores. No place for a comma, apostrophe or Unicode character. Note that the only dot is before the file extension. Also, notice the capitalization. It agrees with general English rules. I suggest to run all titles through before releasing. By looking at above filenames you may also consider adding the name "Colobot OST" or something like that, but that's up to you. Just a suggestion, I don't really care about that.

The track numbers in filenames should stay in my opinion, as they then nicely sort by the default "by name" sorting option and this indicates that they are indeed part of an album, not just random files that happen to be in the same folder.

That's all I have to say in the matter of filenames. About the real titles... The new titles are ok for me, from both of you. I really love the "Fake Paradise". I'd rather not argue about them anymore myself. You should just agree on one version and let it be the end of it.

(09-04-2016, 04:50 PM)RaptorParkowsky Wrote: Yeah, I'm sure, as the GOLD already uses such logo in the splashscreens and nobody in EPSITEC didn't punish us for that. If there's any doubts about that, then you can just ask EPSITEC for the official statement.

I don't have to ask, your answer satisfies me.

(09-04-2016, 04:50 PM)RaptorParkowsky Wrote: So I think as far as we only use it in processed form without font source files in repos (yet), there's nothing wrong with it.

You're absolutely right. We're doing it all the time, in fact. Like converting text to vectors in SVG files instead of linking to a font.

(09-04-2016, 04:50 PM)RaptorParkowsky Wrote: Or maybe we should remake all the logos to be based on Ubuntu now?

I don't know if this is an irony or not, but just to be clear: my answer is definitely no, Kabel is far better. I hope I don't have to prolong this long post with arguments about that.

(09-04-2016, 04:50 PM)RaptorParkowsky Wrote: I think we should ask KDE development team how they can use this font in their logo instead ruining and stopping all my work that isn't already officially released. So who with better English skills is going to do that? @Simbax ? @krzys_h ? @Emxx52 ? Come on, this is going to be probably only a little question on official KDE IRC channel.

There might be a lot of reasons and from most of them we can conclude that we can use the Kabel font too. If you want to be certain, go ahead and ask. For me, you just need to find a font from a source which shares it with a license compliant to GPLv3. That's all we should care about. Even if the source would be wrong, it will be their problem, not ours.

(09-04-2016, 04:50 PM)RaptorParkowsky Wrote: Why did you removed all the links, copyright and publisher notes from their intended places? This is just like removing all or almost all license informations from source file heading in repo. And this is making this release looking less legit and original than it supposed to be. Moreover you removed the link to EPSITEC - the original creators of it. And you removed the link to our GitHub - technically the second heart of our project. The year also is important. It represents the year of original game release and album release.

Sorry to say that, but I don't understand the reasons for their removal either. Unfortunately, I never really cared about meta tags other than title, track and artist name, so I'm leaving the discussion about those for you and other people.

I don't think I'll say anything else on the subject at hand, at least I hope so, but, "remember, I will be watching".
[Image: XvN5CTW.png] [Image: UYXyyMS.png]

Messages In This Thread
RE: CoLoBoT 15th Anniversary Preparations - by Simbax - 09-04-2016, 06:44 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)