> In general I have a dim view of the UDDF format (it's over designed and > horribly verbose), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it right on > export.
Yes, and yes. Although it is a little more normalised than the subsurface format, which feels a bit nicer for handling buddies, sites, trips etc. What's good is that we do seem to be able to express just about everything without any data loss. >> - Lots of areas where there are mandatory tags we need to provide >> (looks like most of this is static). > > > Hmm. Mandatory static tags. What's the entropy of that? I haven't looked in detail yet, but there are just a few bits missing, like some strings in the <generator>. We have the <name> tag in <manufacturer>, for example, but no name in the root <generator>. The other I noticed was that we were missing some mandatory personal data, which we can't provide, but we should probably at least put the tags in for compliance. > After talking to Willem and Pablo I might delay the release until after the > weekend to get some last changes to the manual. > > This also gives an extra bit of time for testing and bug fixing. Ok great. I'll get the patches out asap anyway. _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
