On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 11:12:13AM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 09:02 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:14:09PM +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> > > The RDF stuff is looking more and more arcane and hairy with each
> > > iteration, with all those colons, periods and quotes, plus some
> > > SQL'ish for good measure. Human readable? I begin to miss the
> > > syntactic simplicity of only using angled brackets in XML. Sigh, not
> > > another syntax to learn, please.
> >
> > XML doesn't offer the features we need. If we define an XML schema for
> > LADSPA2 descriptions, and someone extends it, you can bet your bottom
> > dollar that it will break 90% of the parsers in some exciting way.
>
> But RDF can be written in XML, so it must have the features, mustn't it?
Well, yes and no. RDF/XML is a way of writing RDF data in XML, the XML
doesn't mean anything in terms of the XML tree, you need an RDF parser to
make sense of it.
You could define something equivlent just for LADSPA, but then you would
just be reinventing RDF/XML, so why bother?
> I just find it very hard to believe that audio plugins are that special.
> Everyone else seems to manage fine with XML.
No they dont. There are countless things that aren't done in XML, even XML
heavy apps like Firefox use loads of RDF internally to model things that
are painful to do in XML, eg. browser history and XPI manifests.
- Steve
Received on Fri Apr 28 16:15:02 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 28 2006 - 16:15:02 EEST