On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 00:57 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:25:52PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> A well-designed set of tags like the ones you show above would
> probably solve 99.9% of all cases. But you can't expect anyone
> to dream that up in a day. Which leads me to my main gripe with
> LV2: it was defined much too fast. In a normal RFC process, you
> present the problem, give interested parties at least a month
> to consider it and write something that exceeds the quality of
> a whim, and then take at least as much time to study the results
> and comment on them before anything is decided.
Sorry, but you're _really_ missing the whole point here, Fons.
Noone expects anyone to be able to dream up something like the units
definition in a day - that's the whole point! We don't _have_ to bicker
and argue on a mailing list for days on end about some units definition
problem that's completely orthogonal to the plugin specification itself.
If the spec had to wait on every single thing that everybody wanted in
it, it'd be waiting forever (See: GMPI).
You are free to go through a formalized RFC process to define such a
thing if you want. You're also free to just bang out a quick one in 5
minutes that gets the information you need in there. A few people
already have extensions up their sleeve. LV2 doesn't need to wait on
them, because "extensions" have no influence on the spec at all. RDF
data can always be "extended" with other RDF data (eg your units
information) - there is no possibility for "clashes" or anything like
that. (I use quotes because these terms aren't really good descriptions
of what's happening)
As for giving "interested parties" a chance to weigh in, as Steve said
the spec is still completely open to discussion. You are confused abut
the scope of the spec itself though - there are a few things to discuss,
but not many. The reason LV2 came about so quickly is because it's just
LADSPA, translated into a saner extensible format, more or less
verbatim. There's not much to weigh in about because noone's added
anything new - just the ability to add something new in the future
without breaking anything.
Which is all we need...
-DR-
Received on Mon Jun 26 00:15:26 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 26 2006 - 00:15:27 EEST