On Wednesday 29 April 2009 02:14:41 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 01:14:21PM -0400, rgheck wrote: > >> Please remember, if and when you go XML, please make it simple to parse > >> without a full blown XML parser, so we DIYers can continue to tweak our > >> docs with Vim scripts and the like. > > > > The plan is to use a validating parser, for reasons connected with the > > desire to guarantee consistency in the format, BUT to keep the file > > format one that is human readable for precisely the reason you mention. > > Remember: We're all power users, and > > we like to do the scripting thing, too. > > /me has never seen a practical benefit in validating parser. What would > be a real-life use case of validation, as opposed, to, say "best effort > parsing and notification of errors"? > > Andre'
Yeah, can you imagine if you had a script that put in one more paragraph, and unknown to you there was a separate node telling the number of paragraphs, and it failed the validations after you did that? That's pretty much what happens when you try to manipulate OpenOffice docs in their native format. I have to tell you -- I sure appreciated the simplicity of the non-XML formats. STeveT Steve Litt Recession Relief Package http://www.recession-relief.US Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stevelitt
