[linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2 decision points

[Steve Harris]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:11:39 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 21:32 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:05:18PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > nonono :)  I think metadata outside the plugin is without a doubt the
> > > right way to go.  I meant I'm just not a huge fan of the particular
> > > syntax of this Turtle stuff (as opposed to normal well-formed XML).
> > > Mostly because it means we need special tools and who knows what
> > > libraries to deal with it.
> > 
> > you cant usefully read RDF/XML with just an XML parser anyway. It's quite
> > a lot of work to transform from the XML tree to the RDF graph.
> > 
> > But yes, Turtle support is less widespeard than RDF/XML, but there are
> > still Free/Open parsers for every language I can think of (C(++), perl,
> > java, python, ruby, javascript, etc.)
> 
> Speaking as a general developer, I'd much rather you just used plain
> XML. (Pretty much as you have now, in fact.)

The current system is RDF/XML, not vanlla XML, you cant parse it usefully
with stock XML parsers.

XML is not very easy to extend without breaking other peoples tools.
 
> Turtle isn't a standard, is aimed at much more general problem areas,
> and will just force people to read more docs and install more packages.
> It might be a bit nicer for the person writing the plugin file, but that
> isn't that much work. (Or does turtle include some essential feature?)

Turtle only missed being a standard months ago becasue of a wierd patent
problem with a well-known company that shall be nameless. It will be a
standard very soon. 

Future changes should not have to break back-compatibility. We only need
to do it now to remove some old stuff that doesn't work very well.

- Steve