On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 22:21 +0100, email@example.com wrote:
Something about how things refer to ports had to be clarified/changed in
the core spec. Unfortunate, but them's the ropes. Extremely unlikely
that something similar happens again (since there isn't much in the core
spec to change in the first place).
The last bit of that argument doesn't make any sense.
Nobody has to "accept" anything.
> - if required by a plugin, be the only one, but unconditionally,
The extension can define this if it wants. They can define anything.
> - completely replace LV2's 'base', including the initialisation
I suppose it could. Though why is far beyond me... what's your point?
> Such an extension would effectively embed a completely new
> Supporting it would be no more complex than supporting e.g.
I don't know where you're getting this "accept" and "refuse" nonsense,
as if there's some LV2 cabal that has to approve everything you do.
This is pretty much completely contrary to the entire point. You want
to attack LV2 by constructing an extension that would be "refused" by
authority? What? The whole point is that this can't happen (though you
yourself have advocated several times that it SHOULD be monolithic and
authoritarian so this kind of crap could happen, so I don't know how you
can possibly try and use this argument now).
Once again, Fons, you criticize what you clearly do not understand,
based on arguments that are pretty much entirely based on said ignorance
(and blatantly in contradiction with others you've made in the past).
Linux-audio-dev mailing list