[Thoughts wanted] Parts.xml - xml improvement on Part.lst

Re: [Thoughts wanted] UPDATE: Parts.xml - xml improvement on Part.lst
Michael Heidemann Wrote:Why do you split parts primitives?
There is an entry what kind of file it is. To use it double is waisting space IMHO.
Also if you would define all entries a attributes then you can save also a lot of space.

I'm of the opinion that more information is better than less Smile And I think Steffen is right in saying they really are different types of entities.

Quote:<PartEntry Number="XXXX.dat" Description="Brick 7 x 19" LDrawOrg="Part UPDATE 2099-2" License="GPL 4500.0" Category="Weird brick" Keywords="this, brick, would, never, exist" Help="LEGO have really started getting weird with their new moulds" History="TG 2083" BFC="Certify CW">

Personally I prefer to use tags for most data, and attributes only for quirks (like Unofficial). It makes it more human readable.

Quote:Additionally I would add FullPath, Author and Comments attribute. If we also add an "IsOfficial" attribute that can be true or false we can add unofficial files to this database.

I'm iffy on Fullpath as it hardwires the file to a given computer. However perhaps sub-path (below %LDRAW) might be good though. Will think about it.

Good idea about Author.

I don't see what would go in Comment?

IsOfficial is already there in the LDrawOrg element, and in the absence of the Unofficial attribute.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Messages In This Thread
Re: [Thoughts wanted] UPDATE: Parts.xml - xml improvement on Part.lst - by Tim Gould - 2013-02-03, 12:02

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)