Re: [crossfire] File format

On 1/12/22 7:42 PM, Steven Johnson wrote: I was curious how each format would look when using actual crossfire data. So, I made this webpage to show it! https://shjohnson314.com/cf/format-compare/ I show the following side-by-side: Current, YAML,

Re: [crossfire] File format

I was curious how each format would look when using actual crossfire data. So, I made this webpage to show it! https://shjohnson314.com/cf/format-compare/ I show the following side-by-side: Current, YAML, XML, JSON, TOML using an example of formulae descriptions. I also included pros and cons

Re: [crossfire] File format

A few points, hopefully helpful, maybe flaming: > SGML Since XML is a subset (superset?) of SGML, I think finding and incorporating an XML parser is much easier than a SGML one. > YAML I hate the idea of being whitespace dependent. Although, I haven't actually *used* YAML... I think the

Re: [crossfire] File format

when your a hammer everything looks like a nail SGML has been doing the job for 30 years+ is my memory serves me right On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:14:30PM -0500, Steven Johnson wrote: > That sounds like a good idea to me. > > I suggest YAML since it looks nice and allows comments. > > XML is

Re: [crossfire] File format

I can see and agree with your rationale for choosing a standard file format vs the home-made options. But, as far as which one(s) and why - I have only worked with YAML. So I will have to defer to others for more discussion on the pros and cons of the file formats.

Re: [crossfire] File format

That sounds like a good idea to me. I suggest YAML since it looks nice and allows comments. XML is pretty verbose but handles anything. JSON looks better than XML but technically doesn't allow comments. I don't think INI files would support what crossfire needs. On Wed, Dec 8, 2021, 1:41 PM