linuxaudio.org

--001485f270ea2865050488ec48ba

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Steve Harris  wrote:
> On 2010-06-13, at 00:20, fons@kokkinizita.net wrote:

quoted text
>

> > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:09:12AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:

> >

> >> On 2010-06-13, at 00:00, fons@kokkinizita.net wrote:

> >>

> >>> Half of the URLs quoted above refer to inexistent pages.

> >>

> >> That's bad karma, but not essential.

> >>

> >>> What is the purpose of 'http://' in that case ?

> >>

> >> They're just symbols.

> >

> > OK, let me rephrase the question: why are such ambiguous

> > or misleading 'symbols' being used ?

>

> Well, their hardly ambiguous. I would imagine that misleading-ness is

> somewhat dependent on your context.

>

> If you don't feel comfortable with dereferencable symbols you could use

> schemes such as URN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name)

> which cannot be resolved, but it's missing some of the potential advantage.

>

> http://www.w3.org/Addressing/

>

> There are times when having the namespace be dereferencable is an

> advantage. If someone discovers a LV2 turtle file in the wild, but has no

> idea what LV2 is (this has happened) they can paste a URI into their web

> browser and discover more about it. I guess it's little different to

> googling the fingerprint of a binary data file you find, but it's much more

> reliable.

>

> The remaining advantage is really just namespacing, but using an existing

> globally deployed, cheap, and well understood allocation scheme - the DNS

> system and HTTP paths.

>

>

I would like to add that as a beginner to LV2 plugins, I found the use of

urls to be *extremely* confusing.  In every other context that I have

encountered a string beginning with "http://", it has been a direct

reference to a web page or document existing at that URL.  The implication

with attaching "http://" is that the URL is synonymous with the file hosted

there.  However, in this case, the URL is not actually a resource locator,

but a resource identifier.  It was quite a shock when I found out that I

identified plugins by a URL which didn't even have to exist, and when it did

exist, it wasn't actually the plugin, but a website with autogenerated

documentation.  It is also confusing how both extensions and plugins use

URLs.

If your goal is to have documentation easily accessible, then a line

 would serve the purpose just as well.  The way it's

currently set up, you have no idea if the URL is dereferenceable, or even

supposed to be dereferenceable.
It probably would be a lot less confusing if URLs were used with a special

prefix, like "lv2://blarg", because then it would be at least a bit more

evident that the URLs are not supposed to be dereferenced by a web browser.

This also would make things a lot nicer for plugin creators who don't own a

website, because it is very confusing to choose a URL to something that you

know you will never own, and especially confusing to create a URL that is

just "bogus".
Anyway, I'm not saying you should change it, because it obviously works fine

enough, and doesn't actually do anything harmful to the actual

archetecture.  I'm just saying that Fons is not alone in finding the URL

naming scheme confusing.  I'm sure it is confusing to most new lv2 users.
Jeremy
--001485f270ea2865050488ec48ba

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Steve H=

arris <steve@pl=

ugin.org.uk> wrote:
On 2010-06-13, at 00:20, fons@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:09:12AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:

quoted text
>

>> On 2010-06-13, at 00:00, f=

ons@kokkinizita.net wrote:

quoted text
>>

>>> Half of the URLs quoted above refer to inexistent pages.

>>

>> That's bad karma, but not essential.

>>

>>> What is the purpose of 'http://' in that case ?

>>

>> They're just symbols.

>

> OK, let me rephrase the question: why are such ambiguous

> or misleading 'symbols' being used ?

Well, their hardly ambiguous. I would imagine that misleading-ness is=

 somewhat dependent on your context.
If you don't feel comfortable with dereferencable symbols you could use=

 schemes such as URN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_N=

ame) which cannot be resolved, but it's missing some of the potenti=

al advantage.
http://www.w3.o=

rg/Addressing/
There are times when having the namespace be dereferencable is an advantage=

. If someone discovers a LV2 turtle file in the wild, but has no idea what =

LV2 is (this has happened) they can paste a URI into their web browser and =

discover more about it. I guess it's little different to googling the f=

ingerprint of a binary data file you find, but it's much more reliable.=
The remaining advantage is really just namespacing, but using an existing g=

lobally deployed, cheap, and well understood allocation scheme - the DNS sy=

stem and HTTP paths.I would like to add that=

 as a beginner to LV2 plugins, I found the use of urls to be *extremely* co=

nfusing.=A0 In every other context that I have encountered a string beginni=

ng with "http://", it has been a direct reference to a web page o=

r document existing at that URL.=A0 The implication with attaching "ht=

tp://" is that the URL is synonymous with the file hosted there.=A0 Ho=

wever, in this case, the URL is not actually a resource locator, but a reso=

urce identifier.=A0 It was quite a shock when I found out that I identified=

 plugins by a URL which didn't even have to exist, and when it did exis=

t, it wasn't actually the plugin, but a website with autogenerated docu=

mentation.=A0 It is also confusing how both extensions and plugins use URLs=

.
If your goal is to have documentation easily accessible, then a line &l=

t;docurl=3Dhttp://blah> would serve the purp=

ose just as well.=A0 The way it's currently set up, you have no idea if=

 the URL is dereferenceable, or even supposed to be dereferenceable.=A0 
It probably would be a lot less confusing if URLs were used with a spec=

ial prefix, like "lv2://blarg", because then it would be at least=

 a bit more evident that the URLs are not supposed to be dereferenced by a =

web browser.=A0 This also would make things a lot nicer for plugin creators=

 who don't own a website, because it is very confusing to choose a URL =

to something that you know you will never own, and especially confusing to =

create a URL that is just "bogus".
Anyway, I'm not saying you should change it, because it obviously w=

orks fine enough, and doesn't actually do anything harmful to the actua=

l archetecture.=A0 I'm just saying that Fons is not alone in finding th=

e URL naming scheme confusing.=A0 I'm sure it is confusing to most new =

lv2 users.
Jeremy
--001485f270ea2865050488ec48ba--