Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2 decision points

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 12:34 -0700, thockin@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:05:18PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 11:56 -0700, thockin@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 02:22:09PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > > > B) RDF syntax: RDF/Turtle seems a lot more popular in these parts than
> > > > > RDF/XML. We could mandate Turtle for all LADSPA metadata.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I think it's ugly and strange and arbitrary and just weird
> > > > all around, but whatever. I don't really care. :)
> > >
> > > I've not made time for audio software much this past year, so discount me
> > > if you will, but I agree. I just don't see the point of metadata outside
> > > the plugin. I just don't get it.
> >
> > nonono :) I think metadata outside the plugin is without a doubt the
> > right way to go. I meant I'm just not a huge fan of the particular
> > syntax of this Turtle stuff (as opposed to normal well-formed XML).
> > Mostly because it means we need special tools and who knows what
> > libraries to deal with it.
>
> That's fine. I still don't get the point of seperating the two.

Search the archives for any and all threads about adding this or that
trivial thing to LADSPA. Note how all ended with nothing done, and the
LADSPA situation hasn't gotten any better in the past 5 years. Guess
why?

We can't break the ABI every time someone might find a new piece of
metadata handy.

-DR-
Received on Sun Apr 23 00:15:16 2006