Hi Guys,
I just want to bring up one point. I _think_ y'all already know this, but just to be sure:
- It is _not_ my intention to introduce a new meta command for _general_ use in MPD or LDR files.
- It is _not_ my intention to allow authors to specify relations within their working documents.
The goal here is to make the relation data file user-editible, not an extension to .ldr files.
With that in mind, I agree that it makes sense to have any custom metas conform to the .ldr guidelines; some client programs may wish to use a single parser for all cases.
But I would say that having these metas in an .mpd file other than the one that is used by a particualr editor to specify relations (e.g. similar to Sergio's "Tires" file) is an error and the metas should be ignored.
cheers
Ben
I just want to bring up one point. I _think_ y'all already know this, but just to be sure:
- It is _not_ my intention to introduce a new meta command for _general_ use in MPD or LDR files.
- It is _not_ my intention to allow authors to specify relations within their working documents.
The goal here is to make the relation data file user-editible, not an extension to .ldr files.
With that in mind, I agree that it makes sense to have any custom metas conform to the .ldr guidelines; some client programs may wish to use a single parser for all cases.
But I would say that having these metas in an .mpd file other than the one that is used by a particualr editor to specify relations (e.g. similar to Sergio's "Tires" file) is an error and the metas should be ignored.
cheers
Ben