Ralf Gerlich wrote: > Writing a parser is always work we rather wouldn't be doing as we'd > rather devote ourselves to working with the data than to reading or > writing it from or to file. > > What makes XML easier to parse is the presence of generic parser > libraries that physically parse the XML entities. You still don't have > your data cleanly fetched out of that. The property tree probably is one > of the obligatory exceptions. > > The reason why parsing apt.dat is a PITA is the lots of data to be > parsed and interpreted for runways and taxiways (lighting, material, > stopways, etc.). This data doesn't get less with XML and it certainly > won't get less with the new format. >
That's the big argument that Ben Supnik gave me. He converted a single airport to an xml represenation and it was about 2Mb just for the one airport. Of course he used the most verbose xml variant he could devise, but it is true that the data size would expand, and for this particular amount of data, it would likely be a substantial expansion. I suggested XML just because I thought it would be fun to watch Austin go through the contortions of writing an XML parser. :-) Yes I know, small things humor me. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
