Andrew Poelstra wrote: > The point is that we can't be sure what the future will bring in terms > of IOPS, storage capacity (even big servers often RAID together dozens > of small drives to get high speeds against low capacity).
This kind of argument goes against any change. geda development already almost grind to halt because of it. > Plus, even if individual file bloat is something we can ignore, what > happens when you have thousands or millions of files in source control > or in backups? How would XML lead to millions of files? > The problem is that there /isn't/ a useful "industry standard format". Like it or not, XML _is_ an industry standard. A standard for highly structured data formats. There is a reason why it is adopted by so many projects. The availability of well tested parser code is just one of them. > If one appears, there is no guarantee that it will be long-lived or > widely-adopted. XML is a good candidate for both. It already enjoys wide spread adoption. Many of them with high profile like SVG, DocBook, or OpenStreetMap. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_XML_markup_languages > Better we have a file format that works well for what > we want to do, and use exporters for compatibility. This does not preclude XML. XML is not a format by itself, but just a framework of rules to define a format. If there are features that are too heavy for your taste, just don't use them in your specific instance of XML conform format. ---<)kaimartin(>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0B9F53 _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
