David Megginson wrote: > In other words, you'd like <foo></foo> > to be the equivalent of <foo>true</foo> > or <foo>1</foo> > > I'm not sure if that's a good idea -- I'd be more inclined to default > to 0/false/empty-string. What do other people think?
I'm of the same opintion. The XML property syntax is, well, just plain verbose. This optimization helps a little, but not a lot, and adds significant complexity to the specification. The only change that I'd like to see made (forgive me if I've missed an important point here) is to the array syntax. Right now, you define a property array: /sim/foo[0]=A /sim/foo[1]=B as: <sim> <foo n="0">A</foo> <foo n="1">B</foo> </sim> This works, but is a little clumsy. Since multiple subtags are already unambiguous to the writer, would it be possible to simply define additional ones as defining the *next* element in the array? That is, you'd represent the tree above as: <sim> <foo>A</foo> <foo>B</foo> </sim> This makes for (IMHO) more readable/writable syntax. It is also less error prone: non-contiguous and non-zero-indexed property arrays (which are almost always bugs) are now impossible to write, and cutting and pasting is less dangerous -- the first <panel> in a file is panel[0], etc... Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
