Agreed. Above all else, the format needs to be
(1) Extensible. This is one of the biggest problems with CDDB. For
those of you who weren't on the list before, I'd like a format that
supports album-oriented and multi-track oriented music.
(2) Backwards compatible with CDDB. This has been discussed a lot,
and it comes down to the fact that developers need to be able to
switch to the new servers without writing any code. This is very
important. They can switch to the new format once they see the
advantage, but in the meantime we MUST redirect the flow of
information from Escient's servers to our own.
(3) Free. Need I say more? ;-)
Let's not rush into this. Having lots of people come in with already
completed protocols isn't going to help guard against fragmentation.
We aren't in the implementation phase yet; we're still on design. One
of the great strengths of the free software community is that there
are lots of people to help brainstorm on _design_, so we don't end up
with a brain-dead protocol that becomes obsolete in six months. Keep
that in mind.
Kyle
-- Kyle R. Rose "They can try to bind our arms, Laboratory for Computer Science But they cannot chain our minds MIT NE43-309, 617-253-5883 or hearts..." http://web.mit.edu/krr/www/ Stratovarius krose nospam at theory.lcs.mit.edu Forever Free