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 geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user