4 Mar
2004
4 Mar
'04
12:13 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:27:32PM +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:57:32 +0100, Dr. Matthias
Nagorni wrote:
I'd like to throw in some Eurocents:
I had a look at the TAP RDF file, and compared the useful contents to the
file lenght. The ratio of these two puts RDF in the 'bloated' category.
And it's not easy to read or write at all.
What is more disturbing is that there are now at least 3 ways to obtain info
on a LADSPA plugin port:
1. form the port descriptors,
2. by interpreting the name of the port (e.g. 'latency'),
3. from the RDF file, which may repeat or contradict some of 1.
To me this is a mess. It should be perfectly possible to extend the port
descriptors in such a way that things like preset names, scale ticks,
units etc. are available from there.
--
Fons
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Uwe Koloska wrote:
RDF is very simple - RDF syntax and RDF Schema may be complex, but RDF is
not.
In any case all of this is wrapped by the lrdf library. I can understand
the objection to another library though :) isn't the right thing to do to use the RDF
metatadata?
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.