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

Re: [Thoughts wanted] V3 - Parts.xml - xml improvement on Part.lst
Steffen Wrote:I've some 2 cents to add to this format suggestion:


I think that in the history the date needs to be better separated, i.e.
<history date="2012-01-01">blablablablabla</history>
I agree this is the ideal situation. I chose the current compromise to combine human readibility and machine readibility, but perhaps I erred too much to the human side. I'll think about this...


I think the XML format should be minimized to be better human-readable. To me, it currently uses
too long strings. Shortening/simplification suggestions:
<PartEntry> simplify to <File> or <Entry>
Filetype="Shortcut" simplify to Type="Shortcut"
IsOfficial="True" simplify to Official="True"

Aside from PartEntry (which communicates that it is a part type entry as opposed to some future alternative type entry) I agree. But need to get Mike on side for this as these are now used by both codes.

Quote:I think further that <Description> is confusing and invites the user to put arbitrary text here
which better would be located in <Comments>. Thus I suggest to replace <Description> by
<Caption> or <Title> or <Name>

Yes I agree. Again I'd be happy to change if Mike is on board.

Quote:The syntax<BFC>CERTIFY CW</BFC> appears somewhat weird to me, a mix of LDRAW syntax with XML.
Why not use
<BFC Certified="True" Clockwise="True"/>
or, shorter,
<BFC Cert="True" CW="True"/>
here? Why carry over LDRAW syntax into the XML?

Same reason as history and help. But I agree <BFC Certified="true" Winding="CW" /> is much better.

« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Messages In This Thread
Re: [Thoughts wanted] V3 - Parts.xml - xml improvement on Part.lst - by Tim Gould - 2013-02-07, 1:47

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)