26 Apr
2006
26 Apr
'06
1:02 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 07:05 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:51 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
Ah! No removing the logarithmic hint! :)
Specifying the base along with it would be a very good idea though.
Better to have a 'logarithmic' hint and a seperate 'log_base' though.
-DR-
I've written a first cut at an
ontology/schema for the plugin RDF:
http://plugin.org.uk/ladspa2/ladspa-2.ttl
The term schema is a bit misleading, as it doesn't really enforce
anything, it really just gives you some hints about what to write. The
bulk of it is english text to explain the meaning of the bits that are no
longer in the .h
I tried to write it as clearly as possible, but the machine readable parts
might still be a bit cryptic and there could be errors. Shout if there's
any bits that don't make sense.
i know you didn't want to actually change much of the spec, but i would
like to protest at the continued inclusion of the "logarithmic" port
hint. its totally useless. at the very least, the hint should be removed
and replaced by two other hints: logarithmicE and logarithmic10. saying
that something might be better viewed using a logarithmic scale really
says nothing useful. a more satisfactory solution would add "dBFS" to
indicate that the port contains values indicating volumetric or gain
levels. something like that.