13 Jun
2010
13 Jun
'10
12:55 p.m.
On 2010-06-13, at 00:20, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:09:12AM +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
Well, their hardly ambiguous. I would imagine that misleading-ness is somewhat dependent
on your context.
If you don't feel comfortable with dereferencable symbols you could use schemes such
as URN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name) which cannot be resolved, but
it's missing some of the potential advantage.
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/
There are times when having the namespace be dereferencable is an advantage. If someone
discovers a LV2 turtle file in the wild, but has no idea what LV2 is (this has happened)
they can paste a URI into their web browser and discover more about it. I guess it's
little different to googling the fingerprint of a binary data file you find, but it's
much more reliable.
The remaining advantage is really just namespacing, but using an existing globally
deployed, cheap, and well understood allocation scheme - the DNS system and HTTP paths.
On 2010-06-13, at 00:00, fons(a)kokkinizita.net
wrote:
OK, let me rephrase the question: why are such ambiguous
or misleading 'symbols' being used ? Half of the URLs quoted above refer to inexistent
pages.
That's bad karma, but not essential.
What is the purpose of 'http://' in that
case ?
They're just symbols. And since I'm now talking to one of the experts:
Can an LV2 extension redefine everything except the
mimimum required for discovery ? This includes the
way ports are described, the way the host is supposed
to call the plugin etc. ?
You have to provide the minimum that is specified in the C header file, but you can step a
long way outside it if you chose to. For example the dynamic ports extension adds a
completely new type of port. I cannot be understood by hosts that do not support it of
course, but they can tell that it's a plugin that they cannot make use of.
There are also extensions that are back-compatibe, and the host can identify them too.
- Steve