Several people have suggested that LADSPA is not a great name for what we are calling LADSPA 2. Reasons for this include: The L, it's not really linux specific, and though /we/ know that its the L of LAD, its not obvious to people outside. The S, it ain't really going to be simple. For someone like me, who is neck deep in triples on a daily basis, 2.0 seems like the paragon of simplicity, but I can imagine 2.9 being quite a beast. LADSPA, (pron. ladspuh?) is a bit of a mouthful, and not exactly catchy. 2.0, it's not going to be obvious to all users that 2.0 and 1.0 are binary incompatible. I'm not sure everyone thinks in major and minor revisions. So, with some trepidation I suggest that we think about naming, with the proviso that if we haven't reached consensus by May 10th we default to LADSPA 2.0, and live with the pain. ---- My suggestion is that we ressurect the XAP name (http://www.google.com/search?q=lad+xap) It stood for Xap Audio Plugin IIRC. Pros: it's short*, relatively unused** and pronouncable*** Cons: xap.{com,org,net} will have gone long ago (too short), theres a small ammount of baggage. - Steve * I've typed LADSPA_ a lot ** There is a home automaption protocol, called xAP that takes plugin modules. Though I think we started using the name around the same time, they seem like nice people and we should OK it with them. *** "zap"@en-gb