Paul Kahler wrote:
I'm not big on XML (done HTML before) but this:

<maturity>alpha</maturity>

doesn't seem right. I would expect something more like:

<modeltag maturity="alpha"> .... </modeltag>

You are right - and wrong, actually it doesn't matter at all, logically you are of course somehat right, personally I would also often use parameters where FlightGear uses separate tags, but on the other hand it's definitely easier the way it is done now, taking into account that an XML file is parsed recursively to be put into FG's global property tree.

You'll notice that only very few of FlightGear's XML files really
use parameters ...

Where "modeltag" would encompase the whole model definition. Again,
I'm not really familiar with just how bloated XML is supposed to be

it's not XML's fault - it's just a matter of the exact implementation, look into any of the aircraft XML files, you'll see a lot of stuff that you'd normally expect to be a parameter of a tag rather than a separate tag, personally I did also consider this somewhat confusing in the beginning.


but if this is how you define a property of something it seems more
wasteful than I ever thought.

you can do it either way, XML itself doesn't care whether you store data separately or as a parameter.

An even more complex thing would be to allow:
<modeltag>
  .... bunch of stuff...
  <maturity = "alpha">
    .... less developed part of model ....
  </maturity>
</modeltag>

Again, I'm no authority and I don't even know if this second thing
makes sense in this context.

it's a matter of convenience - and also of habits, I'd say: FG offers the functionality to easily obtain a particular node, because that's exactly what FG is doing all the time, while doing it the other way would seem to make more sense, it would not be "conventional" in FG terms ;-)

But again: this was just meant as a suggestion - in case that it should
be accepted to become a temporary solution for FG, I'd recommend to let
me refine it anyway - e.g. I was already told that the maturity levels
wouldn't be adequate ;-)


---------- Boris

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to