[vdr] Re: xxv and autotimers

Christian Wieninger cwieninger at gmx.de
Tue Sep 13 19:51:44 CEST 2005


On Tuesday 13 September 2005 19:01, Carsten Koch wrote:

> I wonder if it would be an improvement of that strategy
> if VDR only took the summary from the timer entry if it
> is not much shorter than the summary from the related EPG data.

The length of the description is not always a good criterion for being 
up-to-date. Some providers send a standard description and replace it a few 
days before the event with something thats up-to-date but perhaps shorter.

On Tuesday 13 September 2005 18:10, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:

> delimiting character that separates 'description' from 'comment', as in
>
>    ...:Description of what happens#some arbitrary comment
>
> where '#' would be that new delimiter. Everything before the delimiter
> would go into the 'description', and everything after it would simply
> be stored and otherwise ignored by VDR.

The delimiter could be a problem, but what about a sequence like CR#CR?
Can't imagine, that this is part of a description.
Another question: Would this comment be absolutely invisible in VDR (in timers 
and recordings summary)? If so, will there be a method like 
cTimer::Comment(), so that plugins could also use it? Would be great! ;-)

Christian



More information about the vdr mailing list