[gmpi] Re: Topic 7.1: Channel Formats
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:38:26 +0100
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 09:01:18 -0700, Chris Grigg wrote:
> I'm still not comfortable with the idea that the per-sample encoding
> wouldn't be expressed in the architecture and API somewhere, even if
> it only works with float for now, specifically to preserve the
> possibility that in the (perhaps distant) future GMPI might work with
> some other, as-yet-uninvented sample representation. Avoiding
> unnecessary reinvention is important, and you can do that in an
This is exactly the sort of thing that kills standardisation efforts. If
you try to address potential future problems then you end up with
something thats sub-optimal for the current problem, never gets adopted,
and consequenctly no-one cares when it comes to be time for the new
encoding, because your standard is obsolete.
Think of SGML v's XML. SGML supported /everything/ whereas XML supports
the bare minimum of functionality. Because SGML was so complex it never
took off. In 5 years XML has got massively wider adoption that SGML did in
20.
Ditto gopher v's the web, SOAP v's CORBA, Multics v's UNIX, I could go on.
It seems possible that in 10 years time we will be using PWM encodings,
but it will be long time after its time for a complete overhaul of GMPI,
it may have even been superceeded by then.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
