On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 23:32 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Sunday 07 Aug 2005 23:30, Stephen Torri wrote: > > Well when I posted to this mailing list that if a user wanted to add > > new chord files to Rosegarden that they would be creating an XML > > file. That drew the response that XML is not meant for humans to be > > creating. > > Of course I'm only making things worse by saying this, but I would have > used XML. I don't quite understand why anyone argued against it, at > least in the first instance. A converter from X to Rosegarden-XML > might be nice for format X in the future, but inventing a new format X > is not so obviously good. > > Anyway, all this is shedpainting crap -- the subject of arguments > because it's easy to think about, where the real problems are not.
Well since I am new I personally want to do the best for the users and follow any prescribed design conventions Rosegarden's developers follow. So if it is best to use format X then I will keep what I have. Otherwise I can easily revert to using XML for the chord file format. It would be great if a consensus on this issue would be resolved. To help that if I was told to use format X then I would say that the boost spirit parser is the best way to parse the chord files (Disadvantage: new dependency - boost). If it was to be XML then I can use QT. The only remaining issue from this is that I do not know how to easily parse user options from the command line. At present I use the boost program options. Stephen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
