Re: [linux-audio-dev] "LADSPA 2" name

On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 07:23 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> 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***

I know it's stupid, but starting with "X" has the same problem as
starting with "G" and "K". Seeing XAP out of context, people will
default to thinking it's some X related technology.

> Cons: xap.{com,org,net} will have gone long ago (too short), theres a
> small ammount of baggage.

It would be very nice if we could get the specname.org domain, to
provide stable resolvable plugin URIs for plugins for authors that don't
have nice spiffy domains of their own...

Then again, domains aren't free, and I know I'm not paying for it. :)
 
-DR-
Received on Thu Apr 27 00:15:16 2006