On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:08:47PM -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote:
> >> And please define a fileformat with color assignments for netnames,
> >> and/or regular expressoins. For example
> >
> > Do we want to entertain the idea of a new file format at this time?
>
> Entertain, yes. Whether we move or not can be discussed later.
>
> However, there are so many things we could do with a new file format,
> it makes sense to at least discuss what new features we would like to
> support, IMO.
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> * All the new layers.
Hard to parse. But having a list of layers that describe the
physical order of the layers is necessary for blind and buried
vias. On the other hand I agree that the current layer grouping
system has to be removed.
> * Levente's idea about storing the colors of each layer.
Default color per layer with the possibility to override
it per net and per layer.
> * Store config info relevant to the design (i.e. DRCs, track widths,
> etc.) Maybe PCB already does this?
I think it does some of it, but others seem to be global between
sessions (mm/mil choice for a start).
> * How about not embedding the footprint into the .pcb file? Or doing
> it optionally, a la gschem?
No, I often have to edit individual footprint. Now a better footprint
editor would be great... I also often switch machines between 3 or
different places, it's easier for me when I don't have to move
too may files around (I already forget often enough to rsync
my private geda symbols library, at least with PCB I don't
have this problem).
> * Support for footprint rotations at arbitrary angles.
Yes, and this requires some file format changes.
> * Get rid of the part of the long preamble which defines what all
> alphabetic characters look like.
Indeed.
> * Support for reading in and storing out comments.
Why not, but it is not the most urgent.
And while we are at it, why not switch to metric dimensions
for internal representation?
> 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.
Keep dreaming, the format will evolve sooner or later in a way
that breaks old parsers or makes them miss fundamental information
on what is in the file. Of course newer parsers should always be able
to properly read old files and convert them to the new format.
Regards,
Gabriel
_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
