At 01:44 PM 9/13/2010, you wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:23:43AM -0700, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
>
> Why? I'd much rather handwrite XML than YAML.
Really? It's not the filesize of XML documents that is the concern; it is the
/redundant/ filesize. Even for a single-character tag, you need to
type <a>...</a>,
which is 7 characters of non-data text.
But that is exactly what others have been saying, they are concerned
about the file size they think they would get from XML... "I want to
run PCB on my iPad", etc.
To contrast, in YAML you would have
a: ...
which is 2 characters, plus indentation, and a lot easier both to
read and to type.
Practically, consider:
<layer><name>my-layer</name></layer>
Versus:
layer:
name: my-layer
The latter is lighter, simpler, grep-able-er, and shows a clear distinction
between data and metadata.
Oh? I don't see how any of the above follow. For the most part, I
don't expect to be writing much XML by hand. But I do expect to need
to read it sometimes and less often edit it. That is, the part where
the name or other property value is typed will need to be
changed. Finding that value quickly and easily is what I am
interested in. The computer does a great job of dealing with the
size and format of the file. I want to use my eyes to quickly find
the data I'm interested in.
Machine-generated XML almost never uses whitespace, so it's next to impossible
to determine nesting levels or document validity, not to mention grep and awk
being nearly useless.
The only XML I have seen is indented just as I would indent code. Is
there something that would make it hard to output whitespace
formatted XML? I would think that would be up to the program. You
example above uses no indentation for XML, but uses indentation for
the counter example. Is whitespace easier to generate by machine for
formats other than XML?
Rick
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
