 |
JP1 Remotes
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Capn Trips wrote: | | I've created a poll here to help WagonMaster gauge what the feeling is on ONE vs. TWO RDF ZIP files for the distribution. |
Great idea, Capn! Many thanks for setting this up.
I'm going to refrain from voting for the moment, however, because I think my vote depends on the outcome of the discussion about whether we can unambiguously detect an extended RDF. Once that issue seems decided, I'll add my vote to the mix.
Thanks again for setting up the poll!
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mathdon
Expert
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 4523
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WagonMaster wrote: | There are several ways to make that distinction clean:- Add a new entry to the RDF
- Insist that an "[Extender]" section (possibly even an empty one) be in all extended RDFs
- Use a standard naming convention in the RDF filename and/or the "Name=" line within the RDF and strictly enforce it
|
I see that the discussion is moving in this direction anyway, but I'll add my vote for Option 2.
I really dislike Option 3. I believe that any significant property of the remote should be recorded in the body of the RDF, not in its filename, and with a formal syntax. As regards the Name entry in the RDF body, I consider that to be for human information, as is supported by the RDF Spec statement "No special processing is performed on this text string." That doesn't mean I am against having some general convention about naming extender RDFs, but that should be for human, rather than machine, recognition.
________________
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mathdon wrote: | | I really dislike Option 3. |
Frankly, I don't like it either (but listed it for completeness).  And, for the record, I agree with everything else you said in that paragraph.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While slogging through all these RDFs (and maps and images), I've encountered yet another case of conflicting data, this time for the URC-6022 and URC-6022X remotes.
There are conflicts in the processor type and I'm not sure which remote has which processor! I took a look at the big JP1 remote table (by Alain/mdavej), but even it has conflicting data. The entry for URC-6022 says "JP1.3" but "HCS08". One of those has to be wrong, but which is it?
And can I trust that the URC-6022X is really a S3F80 processor? (One of the RDFs I have for that remote, which I think is wrong, says that it's HCS08!)
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I also forgot to ask: Does anybody have a map file for the URC-6022? A file search turned up one for the URC-6022X (which came from the "Diagnosis Area", but tests fine with "Map This!", so I'm including it in the next release), and I have a (huge) image file (from Binky's upload) for the URC-6022, but no map file for the -6022! Binky???
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mdavej
Expert
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 4501
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bill,
I can't answer your question about the 6022, but please do keep a list of these issues so I can update the remote table when they're resolved.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
File Section
Wiki
