19 Jun
2006
19 Jun
'06
10:44 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 00:57 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
two points:
1) i think the LV2 scheme is designed to leave the "tag" namespace
open, separating the basic design (plugin vs. metadata) from any
specific metadata definition. this means that agreement is only needed
on the infrastructure for the plugin/metadata design, not on what the
metadata looks like. you can still have your month or two to figure out
the correct metadata namespace.
2) LADSPA "v2" has floundered for more than a year since the previous
LAC BoF. i commend rather than criticize swh for stepping up doing
something, because otherwise nothing would ever have been done.
It's not
beyond the realms of the possible to describe the mathematical
relationship between the octave pitch unit and Hz, but it's probably
excessive.
A well-designed set of tags like the ones you show above would
probably solve 99.9% of all cases. But you can't expect anyone
to dream that up in a day. Which leads me to my main gripe with
LV2: it was defined much too fast. In a normal RFC process, you
present the problem, give interested parties at least a month
to consider it and write something that exceeds the quality of
a whim, and then take at least as much time to study the results
and comment on them before anything is decided.