On 12/16/05, Morten Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed, and I find the EDC format quite easy to work with.
Given these two options:
1) EDC
collections {
groups {
parts {
part {
...
}
}
}
}
2) XML
<collections>
<groups>
<parts>
<part>
...
</part>
</parts>
</groups>
</collections>
I do understand where Jose is coming from, and remember thinking something similar myself at first, but ultimately less typing is good, and I much prefer EDC.
In fact, why stop there - someone really ought to tell those XML guys to replace their crap syntax with the much happier EDC braces style (^_^) Just what I think with some beer in me :-)
Regards!
David
Essien Ita Essien wrote:
> As for edc's being in XML format... I have one response.... *ugh*. XML is
> unnecessarily verbose for the kind of thing edje is trying to accomplish
> *IMOHO*, though, if someone wanted to write an edcML parser that allows one
> to work in XML and spit out edcs, it will definitely suite the purpose
> you're alluding to (I guess anyone that needs it badly will start writing
> it). Personally, I prefer as *plain text* replacement when doing Data
> Interchange b/w systems (config files are ok too, just make the XML simple),
> but that's just me.
Oh I do so agree... people use xml for way to many things.. it's a data
interchange format.. not the be-all/end-all of data storage.
Indeed, and I find the EDC format quite easy to work with.
Given these two options:
1) EDC
collections {
groups {
parts {
part {
...
}
}
}
}
2) XML
<collections>
<groups>
<parts>
<part>
...
</part>
</parts>
</groups>
</collections>
I do understand where Jose is coming from, and remember thinking something similar myself at first, but ultimately less typing is good, and I much prefer EDC.
In fact, why stop there - someone really ought to tell those XML guys to replace their crap syntax with the much happier EDC braces style (^_^) Just what I think with some beer in me :-)
Regards!
David
