4 Mar
2004
4 Mar
'04
7:39 p.m.
[Matthias Nagorni]
Agreed. Leave LADSPA be. I'm pretty sure this is the 9000th time I've
said this, but the S in ladspa is the most important letter.
Some hosts simply don't care about metadata, and they shouldn't have
to. I don't see a problem with the current rdf-using solution.
And as far as XML... well, like it or hate it, it's 'the' format for
structured text storage. Having things in XML is just more flexible
than anything else.
ie. if you wanted to make online user documentation for your plugins,
it's a trivial task. XML to HTML? Done in minutes. Heck, someone
could make an database of all currently known LADSPA plugins, with port
information, descriptions, etc. etc. and it really wouldn't be that hard
at all.
... I'm sure there's a point buried somewhere in here. :)
-Dave
The combination of the very simple LADSPA api
with something as
complicated as RDF seems a bit odd to me. I would wish if there was a
simpler solution.
We agree it's not a simple solution. But it's a solution anyway :)
To me, the idea of a solid, stable core api (LADSPA) extended by
an optionally provided/used metadata layer mainly concerned with
gui appearance and default issues (RDF) is very pleasing.