I didn't mean to sound harsh either. All I wanted to point out is that I wasn't asking or demanding anything, but instead, I was asking (as in questions) whether something could be done on your end, before just doing it the way I felt... and whether there was something you would like to use this feature for, besides the things I want to use it for. I do not expect you to change the way you do the things and while your way of handling files is strictly conservative, I don't consider that to be a bad thing, just like improving it isn't either. I will find my own best way of doing this so that it won't interfere with ZakStunts.
Now, to defend, I necessarily have to explain that your position is good, but subjective. I wouldn't like pipsqueaks to think that I'm doing something obscure, usafe, etc., so I will proceed to explain for them, in case they'd like to read:
obscurity: metadata is invisible except to Cas-Stunts, and possibly phpstunts/ZakStunts
Cas-Stunts metadata is
not obscure. I created this thread precisely in look for possibilities that Cas-Stunts be not the only one to see these data. Even if ZakStunts will not implement functions to access it, the format and contents will be public and anybody creating new tools will be able to access this information, so it is not invisible.
unsafe: other standard track editing software might lose the metadata, or be unable to open the file
Cas-Stunts metadata is
not unsafe. While saving a track with the internal editor will cause it to skip the meta-data, the information required to run the track will still be present, so there is no risk. Besides, the built-in editor is the only one to produce this behaviour and if that were unsafe, then illusion tracks would be unsafe as well and things like using paved roads on water would be as well, which is a common practice in ZakStunts. Nobody ever called TrackBlaster "unsafe" because of it allowing to produce these combinations and they are lost as well when a track is edited with the built-in editor.
frail: metadata can be lost following normal Stunts use, if you are not aware of it
Cas-Stunts metadata is
not frail, for the same reasons explained in the last point. Firstly, people are already used to the fact that they should not save a track with the built-in editor to avoid losing TrackBlaster changes. Secondly, there are many ways in which I can make tracks recover the meta-data is damaged that way and I plan to implement that.
impractical: if aware of metadata, one needs to behave differently when handling the track, constantly mindful of the risk of losing metadata
Cas-Stunts metadata is
not impractical. Once again, you're repeating the same thing, which is incorrect. People can use Stunts comfortably with no fear of losing the information. Also, not doing something can't be the most "practical" way of doing it. I'm seeking for the best way to implement meta-data, not the only of not-implementing it.
fragmenting: it creates different kinds of tracks, and splits tools between standard and cas-aware
Cas-Stunts metadata is
not fragmenting. I do not want to and I simply can't create a format that be incompatible with Stunts. If I do so, the tracks won't work in Stunts and there will be no point in doing it. Stunts will never be Cas-aware, so I realise whatever feature I add will have to keep compatibility with it. Track Blaster was also created with this in mind and, while it allows for creating things that can't be done with Stunts and that won't be preserved by the internal editor, IS compatible with Stunts. Cas-Stunts will be totally compatible in the exact same sense.
confusing: non-programmer players unaware of the metadata are likely to encounter trouble, or at least be confused by the different file size
Cas-Stunts metadata is
not confusing. If you're a not programmer, odds are you don't even know what the size of a track file is. And if you're a programmer, it's obvious there are more data in the file. If you want to know what the information is, Cas-Stunts will provide the format spec with it. If you don't care, you can just ignore the additional information and it will work just as well. If a designer were to create a track and give it a name, author name, etc., and this information could not be stored or the file had be damaged for some very unlikely reason, Cas-Stunts will fix that for them. Besides, no software that we know of, by normal use, damages track files to the extent that they won't work in Stunts, which is the only official target. If Cas-Stunts or Track Blaster are not TRK format targets, neither is ZakStunts.
And at the moment, the only use case for my changes is "Zak would not have to type the title and author of the track every now and then."
Wrong. I really don't know why my proposal was taken so negatively. If you read the post carefully, without rejection in mind, you will see that I gave that as an example and I stated it could be used to store any information that would be useful to ZakStunts, championship oriented information, etc., such as recommended car, which season the track was raced on, etc. I'm sure you could think of uncountable pieces of data like this. But again, I didn't mean to force you to do anything. I just wanted to offer you a feature that we could cooperate on.
breaking standards is a big deal. I am also looking at this with an historical perspective: Stunts is 25 years old, and in 25 more years what would I like to see? Will Cas-Stunts and phpstunts still work? Will tools have been updated to handle non-standard tracks? I can't confidently answer yes to these questions.
Stunts track format is not a
standard. It is a file format that's interpreted by
one program. All other tools try to exploit this to their maximum. No matter what we do in our tools, Stunts won't change how it processes these files, yet, we've found ways to maximise the possibilities. Track Blaster is the best example of it and the improvements in that project were embrased. I am doing nothing different. The future of Stunts? If any of us had been asked about that in 1990 or say, 1992, we would have said Stunts had no future, but while we're a small community, it's 2016 and we're still here. I really can say nothing confidently about Stunts, its tools and users in the future.
Finally,So Dreadnaut, you're telling me I'm not Stunts and I admit it. But you're not Stunts either. We, somehow, are Stunts all together. I say, let's add, because if we're just looking at the "intersection" of our ideas, it will always be null. Our contributions to the game and the community are of entirely different types. We're not a group people that think the same way. We just have it in common that we like this game. If I want to paint it pink and you want to paint it black, let's do both.