> I understand your point of view and I will then provide contact points using
> a separate description format.
> The fact that we can keep both information in the same file is great, but
> srdf then would be a bad example. According to the doc, the node root tag
> of srdf files is robot and therefore it is impossible to provide urdf
> and srdf information
> in the same file, right?
Even with the same root element, it is perfectly fine to have both
descriptions in the same file. As long as both descriptions don't have
conflicting elements or attributes. For the humanoid description, you
could choose to use the same root element, or create a new root
element, whichever sounds best to you.
> Also, is there any plan to have an URDF version 2 using plug-ins or
> hooks so that
> we could have one "core" format with several, domain specific, extensions?
We're trying to keep the different descriptions separated both at the
level of the xml specification, and at the level of the DOM. So I
think a plugin mechanism would not be very helpful in the end. In
the hypothetical situation where the xml and DOM would be unified,
then a plugin mechanism would be useful as an implementation mechanism
to separately maintain and release different parts of the parsers. But
I think there's no real benefit in the current situation.