On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, drew Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday 13 June 2010 17:35:22 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
These are globally unique names (identifiers). They have a
standard syntax that is easily parsed by a machine. They
also have a syntax that allows you to have any manner of
strange versioning scheme without stepping on the toes of my
Alternatives to this system are UUID/GUID's like:
Or a rigidly-enforced naming scheme that everyone must
follow when making their LV2 plugin. Something like:
Where everyone has to be careful about dashes, underscores,
dots, and how version numbers are handled.
Using URI's is preferred because they're both machine and
human readable... and it's /possible/ that the plugin author
will throw up a page at the end of the URL with some kind of
For example: XML namespace URI's are exactly the same.
The XHTML 1.0 namespace is 'http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'.
It identifies the rules about how the document may be
structured. When parsing an XHTML doc, the application has
to already have support for that... becuase it won't get any
help by following the URL. However, if a human follows the
URL, they'll get some pointer regarding XML namespaces from
>> I and assume that the same software is not capable of 'understanding'
They are names for identifying a published component (be it
a plugin, host, RDF schema, etc.). The host application has
to already have support for it.
Meanwhile, if a human stumbles on it, it can /possibly/
give them a few clues about where to look for help or
to find out who published it.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list