> On Sun, 14 May 2006, Dani?l Mantione wrote: > > XML requires an advanced parser and existing parsers will also produce > > complicated parser trees. (All that is needed is a sequence of key/value > > pairs, XML is a recursive tree). I'm not against it, but I have a light > > preference for something simple. > > For me, your or Florian's proposal is perfectly OK. I was just suggesting. > After all, it's just 1 or 2 routines that need to be changed... > I'm not really in favour of CSV style, but all this is a matter of taste... > In the end, it doesn't really matter, as long as it is structured...
I'd prefer something less verbose as XML. XML is text, but due to its verbosity (labeled fields) a bit less readable (and thus debugable) than alternative text forms. I don't think FPC's errormsgs go over the minimal threshold to make XML worthwhile, and neither does it have a complex multi-vendor situation that would justify it. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
