Jon Berndt writes: > I've had some thoughts along those lines, too. Note that I am not so > familiar with proper XML, but I wondered if this might be legal or > advisable, > > Instead of: > > <POSITION> > <X>24.5</X> > <Z>-49.0</Z> > </POSITION> > > we could use: > > <POSITION X="24.5" Z="-49.5"/>
Right now, I use attributes for meta-information (data type, read/write flags, aliasing, and tracing). As long as I use attributes for meta-information and elements for data, we'll have a clean upgrade path; otherwise, we'll end up with lots of reserved names (you cannot have a property named "alias", for example, because it might conflict with the attribute), and versioning problems (there's a new attribute named "foo", so any existing "foo" properties have to be renamed). The current practice is a little verbose compared with a custom-designed, single-purpose XML format, but it generalizes nicely. Another alternative would be to use XML Namespaces, but (while I support them) those have their detractors even in the hard-core XML community, and I'm worried that they'll confuse people a bit in FlightGear. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
