[mythtv] schedulesdirect, continuation of "enhanced" data

Michael T. Dean mtdean at thirdcontact.com
Fri Jul 27 20:37:19 UTC 2007

On 07/27/2007 03:57 PM, Stuart Morgan wrote:
> On Friday 27 July 2007 16:33:40 David Shay wrote:
>> Can anyone comment on whether or not the "enhanced" scheduling data
>> that we had in the datadirect feed vs the xmltv version will continue
>> to be available with the new schedulesdirect approach?  If the xmltv
>> format/DTD is used as a middleman, then we will lose certain data, for
>> instance the "hdtv" flag, unless the xmltv DTD is modified/extended.
> As Robert has already said, yes HDTV information is made available through the 
> xmltv DTD. We already read it from xmltv data in mythtv.
> Looking at the DTD might be of help to you - 
> http://xmltv.cvs.sourceforge.net/xmltv/xmltv/xmltv.dtd?view=markup

And remember that none of the devs have really said anything in the
thread over on -users that probably worried you enough to ask this
question.  (In retrospect, I have to admit that the devs were smart for
staying away from it.  Chris Petersen did make one post--explaining that
the URL is changing so some kind of upgrade will be required--and the
all-knowing users ignored the point of his post, instead choosing to
call the MythTV devs inept for not making the URL a configuration setting.)

Since the users have already decided that there's no way upgrading to a
newer version of MythTV will be required to use schedulesdirect data
with Myth, it just wasn't worth explaining the differences between how
mfdb uses DataDirect versus XMLTV data.  If they really want to make
things harder on themselves and make the data (for which they will be
paying) less useful than it could be so they can continue using 0.18.1
or 0.20-fixes from before it gets schedulesdirect support, that's their
prerogative.  I guess 2005 was a good year for a lot of people and they
prefer to stay stuck there.  (And, it sounds like we'll see a lot of
posts/wiki entries about using XMLTV with mfdb's --file argument to use
the new data.)

I'm pretty sure the person who remembered a dev saying that we'd use
XMLTV and that no changes to Myth would be required was remembering some
of the "don't worry about it, we're looking into it, there are many
possible solutions including ... and we'll have updated -fixes in time"
discussion.  Rather than try to contradict an uncited reference, it was
just easier to explain that 0.20-fixes only recently got support for
using "other" grabbers.  And, as I mentioned, I didn't even care to
explain the downsides of the --file argument.


More information about the mythtv-dev mailing list