Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA proposal for named values
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 21:07:14 EET
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 02:51:13 +0100, Pascal Haakmat wrote:
> But it is not solving the problems:
>
> 1. The PortName still needs to describe the possible values for non
> RDF-capable hosts.
Any host that cares to that extent would also benefit from the other
features of RDF.
> 2. The host still needs to know what part of the PortName it may
> suppress.
No, because its always been my intention to remove the cruft form the end
us port names when there was an alternative.
> My proposal loses us nothing: because plugin authors need to use the
> PortName field to describe port values _anyway_ (to aid non
> RDF-capable hosts) it makes sense to agree on a best way to do it.
I disagree, its an ugly hack, and I didn't want to do it in the first
place, there just wasn't much choice originally, and I got into the habit.
People using eg. command line hosts could read the docs.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jan 04 2003 - 21:07:20 EET