On Monday 18 February 2008, Stuart Brorson wrote: > Dare I suggest that some type of XML or XML-like tree > structured format might be a good thing? I don't necessarily > like XML, but I do appreciate the advantages of having a file > format which is extensible, i.e. we can add new tags while > not breaking older parsers. Maybe there's a way to do that > using a line-oriented file format?
XML specifies only a syntax, which is not very important. You could just as well say to make it C-like, Lisp-like, ADA-like, or whatever. It doesn't matter. What does matter is two factors .. 1. Organization of the information, the ability of the format to represent the data appropriately. 2. A precedent for its use, ideally for the exact use. It is likely you won't find an exact precedent for its use, so the next choice is for related precedent for its use, where there is a logical mapping to this use. By a "related precedent for its use", I mean to look at related tools like auto-placement, static timing analysis, signal integrity simulation, schematic, and others. You might also consider import and export to competitive tools to be in this category. Of these companion tools, some already exist, some will be done if we plant the seed. You need to decide whether to use a portable format, that might allow direct sharing, or to make another proprietary format, so translation would always be required. When a new format is chosen, the first coding that needs to be done is a two-way translator, between the new and old format, which will prove the adequacy (or inadequacy) of the format. It needs to be able to make a round trip with no loss. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
