28 Apr
2006
28 Apr
'06
8:57 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 11:12:13AM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 09:02 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
Well, yes and no. RDF/XML is a way of writing RDF data in XML, the XML
doesn't mean anything in terms of the XML tree, you need an RDF parser to
make sense of it.
You could define something equivlent just for LADSPA, but then you would
just be reinventing RDF/XML, so why bother?
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:14:09PM +0200, Luis
Garrido wrote:
But RDF can be written in XML, so it must have the features, mustn't it? The RDF stuff is looking more and more arcane and
hairy with each
iteration, with all those colons, periods and quotes, plus some
SQL'ish for good measure. Human readable? I begin to miss the
syntactic simplicity of only using angled brackets in XML. Sigh, not
another syntax to learn, please.
XML doesn't offer the features we need. If we define an XML schema for
LADSPA2 descriptions, and someone extends it, you can bet your bottom
dollar that it will break 90% of the parsers in some exciting way. I just find it very hard to believe that audio plugins
are that special.
Everyone else seems to manage fine with XML.
No they dont. There are countless things that aren't done in XML, even XML
heavy apps like Firefox use loads of RDF internally to model things that
are painful to do in XML, eg. browser history and XPI manifests.
- Steve