[Devel] Fwd: [RFC] URID extension
Gabriel M. Beddingfield
gabrbedd at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 14:36:46 PDT 2011
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, David Robillard wrote:
> On a related note:
> The real sticking point here is the event extension. URI map doesn't
> actually *have* to go, but might as well do it cleanly to eliminate
> confusion (at the cost of temporary hassle).
uri-map can be implemented by urid. In every uri-map
implementation I've seen, this will be no big deal at all...
because they're returning static values.
> My vision for this is basically the existing "atom" extension with a few
> minor additions to make it take on the former job of the event extension
> as well:
Is this the same as http://lv2plug.in/ns/ext/atom in SVN?
If so, I'll inspect that before making any comments.
I noticed that it also has a uint16_t `type`. Didn't you
point to this as the major failing of the Event extension?
> Simple silly question: any opinions on the name for this? Is "atom"
> good? "Object" would seem natural as well, but it clashes with RDF
> "object". "Blob" implies complete untypedness which is undesirable.
FWIW, in X11 what they call "Atom" is more or less what LV2
calls "urid" or "uri-map."
More information about the Devel