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


Re: [Thoughts wanted] UPDATE: Parts.xml - xml improvement on Part.lst
#31
Hmmm, I am just coming back here after some time and would like to add some more thoughts
which just lately came to my mind. Let me share them here, they are just rough thoughts:
I am not sure if it really is a good idea to introduce a completely new syntax (here: XML) which carries
the same information which is already present in the header of LDRAW files.
Remember how much effort we need to keep the LDRAW header syntax clean, simple and consistent.
Remember the meta statements like 0 !HISTORY etc. in the files?
Would we officially launch this new XML format, then this will create a parallel universe.
Tool implementors will have to implement not 1, but 2 parsers: one for DAT/LDR/MPD files,
and one for the new XML format.
Wouldn't it be simpler to use the _existing_ LDRAW syntax also for the index,
and simply separate parts by something very simple, like a line of dashes? Something like
Code:
0 My Cool Part 1
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt
------------------------------------------------
0 My Cool Part 2
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt
------------------------------------------------
0 My Cool Part 3
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt
------------------------------------------------
0 My Cool Part 4
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Re: [Thoughts wanted] UPDATE: Parts.xml - xml improvement on Part.lst - by Steffen - 2013-02-07, 0:37

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)