Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/20/18:42:42
--001a11452782e3d69205275ceb1f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Nicklas Karlsson (
nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <
geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via
> > >> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com]
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> I do not think file format is important.
> > >>> You are absolutely right about this, the data model is the challenge,
> > >>> not how to store it, that's trivial.
> > >>>
> > >> But if you're going to go with a plain text format, you'd want a good
> > >> reason to choose XML, as its the least readable option.
> > > It would be very readable if good graphical viewers where avaialable
> for Linux but I searched for linux viewers and did not find in debian. If
> no good parsers are available I guess there is no good reason at all.
> >
> > With good graphical viewer also compressed encrypted binary format is
> > very readable.
> >
> > For readable plaintext format you need nothing more than text editor
> > with functionality of Notepad.
>
> Yes XML look horrible, I would have preferred structures like "C" or
> something similar, only reason i brought it up is because it seems to be
> rather common.
>
There's still a lot of it around but I don't think it's getting used much
in new work. Requiring end tags for everything guarantees huge redundancy
right up front. You can use lots of attributes to make the problem
somewhat less, but the trouble with that is there's no clear reason to use
attr versus sub-node, it's a redundant design. The lisp crowd has long
made fun of XML as a poor reinvention of S-expressions for these reasons.
That said if there was an existing successful part standard that used XML
that would be reason enough to use it. But I think I've heard J Doty say
in the past that that standard (which I think was being discussed earlier
in this thread) was effectively dead...
Britton
--001a11452782e3d69205275ceb1f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Nicklas Karlsson (<a href=3D"mailto:ni=
cklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com">nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a href=
=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] <span dir=3D"l=
tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com" target=3D"_blank">geda-use=
r AT delorie DOT com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span=
class=3D"">> >> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Peter Stuge (<a =
href=3D"mailto:peter AT stuge DOT se">peter AT stuge DOT se</a>) [via<br>
> >> <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT co=
m</a>] <<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</=
a>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> Nicklas Karlsson (<a href=3D"mailto:nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gm=
ail.com">nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user=
@delorie.com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>]<br>
> >>> wrote:<br>
> >>>> I do not think file format is important.<br>
> >>> You are absolutely right about this, the data model is th=
e challenge,<br>
> >>> not how to store it, that's trivial.<br>
> >>><br>
> >> But if you're going to go with a plain text format, you&#=
39;d want a good<br>
> >> reason to choose XML, as its the least readable option.<br>
> > It would be very readable if good graphical viewers where avaiala=
ble for Linux but I searched for linux viewers and did not find in debian. =
If no good parsers are available I guess there is no good reason at all.<br=
>
><br>
> With good graphical viewer also compressed encrypted binary format is<=
br>
> very readable.<br>
><br>
> For readable plaintext format you need nothing more than text editor<b=
r>
> with functionality of Notepad.<br>
<br>
</span>Yes XML look horrible, I would have preferred structures like "=
C" or something similar, only reason i brought it up is because it see=
ms to be rather common.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"">Ther=
e's still a lot of it around but I don't think it's getting use=
d much in new work.=C2=A0 Requiring end tags for everything guarantees huge=
redundancy right up front.=C2=A0 You can use lots of attributes to make th=
e problem somewhat less, but the trouble with that is there's no clear =
reason to use attr versus sub-node, it's a redundant design.=C2=A0 The =
lisp crowd has long made fun of XML as a poor reinvention of S-expressions =
for these reasons.</div><div style=3D""><br></div><div style=3D"">That said=
if there was an existing successful part standard that used XML that would=
be reason enough to use it.=C2=A0 But I think I've heard J Doty say in=
the past that that standard (which I think was being discussed earlier in =
this thread) was effectively dead...</div><div style=3D""><br></div><div st=
yle=3D"">Britton</div></div><br></div></div>
--001a11452782e3d69205275ceb1f--
- Raw text -