20 Oct
2021
20 Oct
'21
12:58 a.m.
On Tue, 2021-10-19 at 19:17 +0100, Will Godfrey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:04:08 -0400
David Robillard <d(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
In the case of all the LV2 specs, they are.
http://lv2plug.in/ns/lv2core#Plugin
On Tue, 2021-10-19 at 10:00 +0100, Chris Cannam
wrote:
I disagree.
Like many people, if I see what looks like a valid url, then that's
what I
expect it to be, not some form of labelling. And, of course, URIs are just strings - the fact
that they are
typically written with http at the start etc is just a namespacing
convention. The lv2 standard could have used
<e274923af6ffac82ad3f5beebb015380> instead of
<http://lv2plug.in/ns/lv2core#plugin> and it would still work.
I've honestly thought a few times that maybe using a custom scheme
would have been better. It's objectively worse in every way, but the
instant people see "http" they lose their damned minds for some
reason
:)
C'est la vie... What is even worse, is when there
is a problem of some sort with a plugin, and host reports that the
(apparent)
url doesn't exist!
That's rather strange. Most hosts don't even do internet access
whatsoever, and even if they did, I can't imagine why they'd be trying
to fetch these ones.
Which host?
--
dr