On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Paul Winkler wrote:
> Looks fine, but why "port-number"? Since this is an attribute of the
> port tag, there's nothing ambiguous about what it's a number of ... is
> there? e.g.
I think that was for my benefit. I still like port-number better than
number. It doesn't get much more vague than "number". Maybe "port-id"?
Or just "id"? Is it important? Are you worried about saving space?
> <port name="Frequency (Hz)" value="0.001404"/>
>
> ... but I don't think we can guarantee that will work, as there's
> nothing AFAIK that guarantees the PortNames will be unique or even
> non-empty.
I don't think that is possible with the current LADSPA standard.
> One more tip that makes it more compact without (IMHO) hurting human
> readability - I know in XHTML you can do this, therefore I think it's
> valid XML as well:
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <Ladspa>
> <port number="4" value="1.00000" />
That is legal in XML. The library I use (libxml++) output the more
verbose <port></port>. I think the library could read the shortened
format. I didn't worry about it.
But basically you like? I think the main question is where to put the
presets. "/usr/local/lib/ladspa/preset/ladspa_plugin_id/"? That works
for me as a fine default. But should user created plugins be put there?
I'm leaning towards having two directories. One for presets distributed
with the plugin put in /usr/local/ and one for presets created by the user
saved in a local directory. Maybe ".ladspa"? A little more work for us
implementors, but I think it would be cleaner.
Taybin
