[gmpi] Re: ramps vs audio-rate controls

  • From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:36:37 +0000

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 10:56:09 -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> We're supposed to be forward thinking, right?

Hmmm... IMHO stardards should not require research to get them written.
If you are writign anything into the standard which has need been tried
and tested in muptiple systems you're asking for truoble.

This has been the policy of the W3C since they tried to standardise a
couple of things (e.g. OWL) that did not have extensive practical
implementations and ran into problems. It was only acceptable at all in
OWL because it is possible to prove mathematically that a particular
feature will be computable and consistent, we dont have that luxury.

Back on topic: lets just stick with (one kind of) timestamped event ramp.
We know that works, and theres nothing particularly wrong with it.

- 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: